Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether he has concluded his review of the procedure to be followed with regard to the claims of British subjects for compensation for damage to their property in Shanghai; and how long the persons concerned will have to wait before receiving the compensation due to them?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): Instructions have been sent to His Majesty's Ambassador in China to forward to His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo such claims as are in their final form, for presentation to the Japanese Government as and when they are received. I am unable to say how long the claimants will have to wait before receiving payment.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Are the Japanese Government setting up any machinery in connection with the payment of these debts?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer for the Japanese Government, but from our point of view we are taking the action which the hon. Member has just described.

Mr. R. Acland: Why are claims against Japan made as and when they are received, whereas in the case of the Burgos authorities they have to wait until the conclusion of hostilities?

Mr. Butler: There is no invariable practice, and in this case I have given the hon. Member the position.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Prime Minister the text of the agreement between the Government and Japan in connection with payments to foreign holders of

bonds; and whether the Customs revenues at the Chinese ports are to be collected to pay holders of bonds?

Mr. Butler: In an answer to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 4th May, the Prime Minister circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT the gist of the Chinese Customs arrangement reached at Tokyo between the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Ambassador. The arrangement provides for the payment of the share of the service of China's foreign obligations due from the Customs revenue collected in areas under Japanese occupation.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the fact that this method of collecting dues is depriving the Chinese Government of some part of their revenue?

Mr. Butler: I shall want notice of that question.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Have the Chinese Government been made aware of the terms of this agreement?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the recent cases of unwarrantable interference by the Japanese with the British steamers "Tung Wo" at Haimen and "King Yuan" at Shanghai; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are giving urgent consideration to steps calculated to avoid a recurrence of such incidents.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the difficulty of reviving industry in the factories in the industrial part of the International Settlement of Shanghai owing to the refusal of Chinese women to work in Japanese factories for fear of being molested and to the refusal of the Japanese authorities to remove the restrictions on Chinese and foreign-owned factories as long as Japanese factories remain closed; and whether he will represent to the Japanese Government that the enforcement of strict discipline in the Japanese forces, particularly with regard to their treatment of Chinese women, is an essential preliminary to the revival of industry?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am aware of this difficulty. His Majesty's Representatives at Shanghai and Tokyo are constantly pressing the Japanese authorities to remove these and all other vexatious restrictions with a view to the revival of trade and restoration of normal conditions.

Mr. Moreing: Is the hon. Member aware that it is not so much a question of the restrictions by the Japanese on trade as the constant behaviour of Japanese troops which has resulted in such intimidation and fear that Chinese women will not work in Japanese establishments?

Mr. Butler: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Japanese authorities have refused to allow British railway officials to inspect the line of the Shanghai-Nanking railway on behalf of British mortgagees of the railway revenues and are themselves selling passenger tickets on the line; and what steps he is taking to stop this serious breach of the loan agreement?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that permission has been refused for the inspection of this line by representatives of the mortgagees. As regards the sale of passenger tickets, I understand that permits to travel on it are issued by the Japanese military authorities and that those receiving such permits do, in fact, pay for their fares. His Majesty's Ambassador at Shanghai has urged the Japanese authorities there to ensure that British interests in this line are safeguarded. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has also taken up the matter with the Japanese Government and has asked that an early opportunity should be afforded for the inspection and survey of the line, and that the necessary measures should be taken to safeguard the interests of the British bondholders.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is this one of the vested interests referred to by Mr. Hirota, and may we rely upon it that there will be no selling of the Chinese people?

M. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall consider the British interests concerned in this matter.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government with a view to preventing a repetition of the recent incidents in Shanghai between Japanese troops and members of His Majesty's armed forces?

Mr. Butler: Incidents of the kind referred to by the hon. Member are always liable to occur in the conditions which exist in the Shanghai area. His Majesty's Government are doing all in their power by negotiation and remonstrance to avoid the recurrence of such incidents.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (BROADCASTS).

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been drawn to the frequent broadcasts from Odessa in Arabic urging the population of the Near East to revolt; and what, if any, reply has been received to such representations?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The information in my possession would not justify any such action as that proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that branches of the Russian cheka have for a considerable time been in effective control not only of the Barcelona and Valencia Governments' courts and prisons, but the international and republican troops as well; and will he bring this fact to the attention of the Non-Intervention Committee?

Mr. Butler: The information in my possession does not confirm the facts given by my hon. and gallant Friend. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Captain Ramsay: If the hon. Member has any doubts on the matter may I pass to him a pamphlet based on first-hand information, written by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and agreed to by all his friends?

Mr. Gallacher: One is as big a "blether "as the other.

Mr. Montague: Has the Prime Minister been informed of an informative article on this subject in the "News Chronicle" this morning?

Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister is always well informed and is prepared to study all materials given to him by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether the following German and Italian vessels leaving for Spanish ports carried non-intervention observers on board and whether any reports concerning them were received by the Nonintervention Committee: the German steamship "Spezia," which left Hamburg on 4th March bound for Musel; the German steamship "Schurbeck," which left Antwerp on l0th March bound for Malaga; the German liner "Kulmerland," which passed through the Suez Canal on 13th March bound for Huelva; the Italian steamship "Franca Fassio," which left Genoa on 7th March bound for Seville; and the Italian steamship "Gradisca," which called at Cadiz between 22nd and 25th March?

Mr. Butler: I understand from inquiries addressed to the Non-Intervention Board that the "Spezia," "Schurbeck "and" Franca Fassio "all embarked observing officers who reported that no breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement had occurred. The "Kulmerland" passed through the Suez Canal on the date mentioned, but it is clear from the stages of her voyage that she could not have called at a Spanish port. The "Gradisca" could not have called at Cadiz within the dates mentioned, since I am informed that she did not leave Naples till 29th March. She did, however, reach Cadiz on 4th April, having previously embarked an observing officer at Gibraltar, who reported that no breach of the Non-Intervention Agreement had taken place.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that at least one British citizen has been shot in a prison in Barcelona; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. But if my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with any information in his possession, I will undertake to make inquiries.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Under-Secretary consider sending the hon. and

gallant Member to investigate this matter?

Captain Ramsay: Is not that quite unnecessary seeing that we have confirmation by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern)?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the declaration of policy recently made by the Spanish Prime Minister, Dr. Negrin; and whether His Majesty's Government will seek to secure peace in Spain on the basis of such terms?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I have seen the declaration to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government are prepared at any time, at the request of either of the contending parties, to lend their offices with a view to securing agreement between those parties for a settlement of the conflict, but it would not be in accordance with their policy to attempt to impose any particular settlement on either side.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not a fact that since the change of policy from Senor Prieto to Dr. Negrin, there have been 500 executions in Barcelona, and would not a joint note from democratic Governments—

Mr. Speaker: That question does not arise on this question.

Sir H. Croft: May I respectfully ask whether this change of policy since the new Prime Minister came in—

Mr. Speaker: The question refers to a declaration of policy.

Mr. Parker: asked the Prime Minister when His Majesty's Government propose to present their claims for compensation to the Spanish insurgent Government for British lives lost since the Nyon Agreement?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are examining such claims with a view to their presentation at the first suitable opportunity.

Mr. Acland: Is not this a change of policy as compared with the declaration that in the case of the Burgos Government they must be presented after the conclusion of hostilities?

Mr. Butler: It is a question which is the best time. While His Majesty's Government consider that it is best to wait until the conclusion of hostilities, that does not prevent their taking advantage of earlier opportunities which seem favourable.

Mr. Acland: What is wrong with the present moment for presenting these claims?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member can rely on the discretion of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Parker: asked the Prime Minister how long it is since His Majesty's Government presented a claim for compensation in connection with the eight British lives lost before the Nyon Agreement, when His Majesty's ship "Hunter" struck a mine; and when they anticipate payment will take place?

Mr. Butler: The Burgos authorities were informed on 25th November, 1937, of the approximate capital sum required to compensate the dependants of those killed and those injured in the explosion. The Burgos authorities subsequently denied that the mine responsible for the damage was laid by their vessels, but the British Agent was instructed to reply that His Majesty's Government could not accept this contention and must maintain their claims. It is not at present the intention of His Majesty's Government to present a final claim for compensation in respect of those killed and those injured to the Burgos authorities until the final cost of repairing the damage of His Majesty's ship "Hunter" herself is known, for which a claim is also being made. The dependants of the men concerned have already been accorded the compensation to which they are entitled under the Naval Regulations applicable to death on active service, and upon which His Majesty's Government's claim in this particular is based.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of pensioners with a statutory right to pension under Section 7 of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918, whose pensions have been forfeited or suspended; how many of these are for

causes other than treason or felony; and under what authority such pensioners are deprived of pension granted as a statutory right by Act of Parliament?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to give the figures asked for in the first part of the question. With regard to the last part, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the statutory right to receive the pension when awarded is, under the terms of Section 7 of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919, and Section 8 (1) of the War Pensions Act, 1920, made subject to the conditions contained in the Warrant under which the pension was granted, and these conditions provide for the penalty of forfeiture in certain circumstances.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Do they cover cases of offences other than treason or felony?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON LANDS (SURVEY).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture what requests have been addressed to him for a new record of the common lands of England and Wales to be made; whether he is aware that the last survey of the commons in English parishes was nearly 100 years ago and that, owing to the changes in the countryside in that period, difficulties exist at times of dispute as to common rights; and whether he will give the suggestion of a new survey his sympathetic consideration?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Requests for legislation to authorise a survey of common lands in England and Wales have been made to me and to my predecessors from time to time by bodies and individuals interested in the preservation of these lands. I am aware that particulars of many commons were given in the Parish Apportionments made in pursuance of the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836; and, while a new and complete survey of commons would be useful in connection with the rights exercisable by the public and others over such areas, I cannot, on account of the complexity and expense of the task, at present promise the introduction of legislation for the purpose.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Minister continue to give this matter his sympathetic consideration and bring the matter up again at an early date?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly continue to give the matter sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making inquiries through the usual channels as to whether Measures to do this might not become unopposed Measures in the House?

Sir Joseph Nall: Is it not a fact that the whole question of the revision of the Ordnance Survey is hopelessly in arrears, and what steps are being taken to bring the work up to date?

Mr. Morrison: That is a separate question, but I do not agree that the Ordnance Survey is hopelessly in arrears. There has been considerable progress recently in expediting a review.

Mr. Kirkwood: Arising out of the original reply, is it not a disgrace that the people who work on the land are leaving the land in great numbers, and that the Government are doing nothing to alter the situation?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

HOME-GROWN FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now able to make a further statement of Government policy in relation to the development and increase of home-grown food supplies?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the possible shortage of world food supplies, how long is the progress of home cultivation to be delayed? Will the right hon. Gentleman give me some answer to that?

Mr. Morrison: The whole policy of the Government in agricultural matters is designed to secure an increase in production, and it has achieved that in many important respects.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the half measures which are being taken are both futile and fantastic? Do it now—grow more food!

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Thurtle: Is not the Minister aware that the whole position is thoroughly unsatisfactory?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is now the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to amend the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, with a view to the creation of an agricultural finance corporation, or some similar body, based on the same principle as the railway finance corporation, with an authorised and issued capital in £1 shares of £100, with powers to issue debenture stock, guaranteed as to principal and interest by the Treasury, with a view to providing long-term credits to assist the increased production of homegrown foodstuffs?

Mr. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the answer given to a similar question by my hon. Friend on 15th June, 1937.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the farmers cannot plan for future development without cheap money, and is he further aware that it is over two years since I asked him questions on this matter, and that nothing has been done?

Mr. Morrison: I would not agree that nothing has been done. The matter has been under consideration.

Mr. Leach: Is the Minister not aware that these curt answers to the hon. Member are in the nature of cruelty to children?

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the whole matter on the Adjournment.

SHEEP.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious condition of the sheep trade; and what steps he proposes to take to improve this side of the agricultural industry?

Major Braithwaite: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that large numbers of sheep are being placed on the market at prices substantially lower than have been experienced for some years; and whether,


in view of the dry season and the scarcity of feeding stuffs, he will take steps to regulate the import of mutton until the home producers can recover from these abnormal conditions?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am aware that the present prices for fat sheep and lambs are lower than in recent years. Marketings for the first four months as a whole do not appear to be abnormal. For example, entries for fat sheep at certain representative markets in England and Wales totalled 680,617 up to the week ended 4th May, 1938, as against an average of 687,521 for the comparable periods of 1935–37. Home supplies during the last two weeks have, however, been rather heavier than usual at this season, owing possibly to temporary causes. Supplies of mutton and lamb from foreign countries to the United Kingdom are already limited in accordance with the Ottawa Agreements to approximately 65 per cent. of the standard year (July, 1931-June, 1932). I am in consultation with representatives of the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and of New Zealand in regard to supplies from those Dominions during the current year. The situation is being kept under close review.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: In view of the great importance of sheep to the agricultural industry, will the right hon. Gentleman hurry up these consultations and see that the matter is dealt with as quickly as possible?

Mr. Morrison: I agree as to the importance of sheep to the agricultural industry, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there will be no avoidable delay in these consultations.

Mr. Paling: Why is it that when anything happens in agriculture, hon. Members who believe in private enterprise always come to the State to ask for a remedy?

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken, not only to stop the decline but to increase the area under allotments, in order to increase home food supplies and improve national fitness?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave

to the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) on 5th May.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the action of a great many local authorities in recent years in appropriating for other purposes land which was being used for allotments, and in view of the great desire of urban workers to have allotments, will he do what he can to prevent this?

Mr. Morrison: I have at present statutory powers to interfere in some degree in this matter, and I will certainly continue to watch it.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that in a number of urban areas the local authorities have been absolutely compelled to take some allotments for the purposes of carrying out their building programmes?

Mr. Morrison: There are cases in which the local authorities are compelled to take land of that kind for other purposes, but it is generally possible to secure alternative accommodation for allotments.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR- WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Postmaster-General what contract work is done for his Department by Messrs. B. and F. Carter and Company, Limited, of Abion Works, Waterloo Street, Bolton; what are the articles supplied to the Post Office by this firm; and whether the firm is bound by the fair-wages clause in Government contracts?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): So far as I have been able to ascertain, no work is done for the Post Office by the firm mentioned.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that since this question was put on the Order Paper, the firm have met the claim made on behalf of their workers and are paying an increased rate of wages?

Major Tryon: I am glad to hear that. I still say that we have not been able to trace any connection between this firm and the Post Office, but if the hon. Member has any information to the contrary, I should be glad to go into it.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).

Mr. Day: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the repeated representations that his Department has received in the past to the effect that the existing system of ventilation in the Chamber is prejudicial to health, he will now undertake to have the necessary alterations made for the improvement of the same?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): Although, admittedly, the present system leaves something to be desired from the point of view of comfort during the summer months, the results of exhaustive study of the conditions in the Chamber, together with the advice which I have received from various expert authorities, point to the conclusion that the conditions are in no way prejudicial to health. Much careful study has been given to an improved ventilation scheme: but, in view of the heavy demands at present being made by the defence programme on the engineering industry, it is desirable to keep this scheme and others of a comparable character in reserve for consideration when the peak of the rearmament programme has been passed, and when it will be both more advantageous and more opportune for the industry to have ordinary civil works available for execution.

Mr. Day: Are we to understand from that answer that the Government are not going to take notice of the recommendations of the committee which has investigated this matter?

Sir William Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is some years since streptococci in this Chamber were supplied with broth, and does he not think that it is time the experiment was tried again?

Sir P. Sassoon: The rearmament programme puts great pressure on the engineering firms.

Mr. Acland: Are we to understand that the Government accept the arguments often used on these benches that a supply of public works schemes should be kept in reserve until the armaments programme is over?

Mr. Crossley: What has this really to do with rearmament? Why must hon. Members be kept for years longer in a thoroughly lethargic and dull atmosphere?

SCOTLAND (HOUSING).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has given further consideration to the position of housing in Greenock and elsewhere in Scotland, and the need for a Government grant appropriate to, or proportional to, the size of the house provided; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): My right hon. Friend is in constant touch with the Greenock Town Council and the other local authorities in Scotland to secure the utmost expedition in the provision of new houses for the working classes. With regard to the second part of the question, as my right hon. Friend stated during the Debate on the Housing (Scotland) Acts (Continuation of Contributions) Order on 29th March, the whole question of housing subsidies is at present under discussion between the Department of Health and a sub-committee appointed by the Associations of Local Authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

UNBRANDED IMPORTS (DOMINIONS AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that unbranded products are imported into New Zealand and other countries; that after their arrival seals are placed on them, such as "Longton," "Burslem," "Windsor," etc., thus misleading the public; and will he consider taking steps to deal with this problem?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I am not aware of the practice described by the hon. Member, but if he will send me particulars of any specific cases I shall be glad to make inquiries into them.

IMPORTS (MARKS OF ORIGIN).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the growing practice of erasing the stamp of origin of products produced in the Far East; that people have been misled by this action; and can appropriate action be taken in order to make it compulsory to brand all products with the country of origin?

Captain Wallace: My attention has not previously been called to this matter, but if the hon. Member would furnish me with particulars of any cases in which an indication of origin required under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, is being removed I will certainly consider what action can be taken. There is no power under that Act either to require all imported goods to be marked or, where an indication of origin is required, that the indication should necessarily be the name of the country of origin.

Mr. Smith: Am I to understand from that answer that no representations have been made by the organised manufacturers in this country to deal with this matter?

Captain Wallace: I think that must be so, because if such representations had been made, I should not have said that my attention had not been called to the matter.

FOREIGN EXPORT SUBSIDIES.

Major Dower: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have any information that subsidies on goods exported to this country are being paid by the government of any Continental country other than Germany?

Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has certain information regarding export subsidies in one form or another which are understood to operate in several European countries. The information is, however, of varying reliability, and the existence of a Governmental subsidy is often difficult to establish. If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know the countries in which he is particularly interested I will send him such information as is available.

Sir H. Croft: Is it not the case that when goods are imported into this country at a lower price than that which obtains in the country of origin, it is fairly conclusive evidence that there is a subsidy, or else that there is pure dumping, and, if so, what action is being taken?

Captain Wallace: I think that is a rather larger question, and I would like to see it on the Paper.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware of the importance of the case of the Opel car?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information he has offered to the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain Wallace: If my hon. and gallant Friend will tell me the name of the country in respect of which he wants the information, I will give him what information I can and I will certainly circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but if I were to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT all the information, of varying degrees of reliability, which we have on this subject, it would fill several volumes.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister make special inquiries with regard to the case of the Opel car?

DUTY-FREE IMPORTS.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the general conditions necessary for highly-manufactured goods, labeled "Empire" or "British product," to qualify for duty-free importation into this country; and what steps are taken to see that these conditions are complied with?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The conditions to be fulfilled in order to establish claims for admission of imported goods free of duty or at reduced rates of duty under Imperial Preference are explained in a public leaflet, issued by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. I can assure my hon. Friend that all practicable steps are taken to ensure that these conditions are fulfilled.

DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES (EVIDENCE, PUBLICATION).

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health whether the decision not to print or publish the minutes of evidence of the Departmental Committee on Rent Restriction was taken by the chairman of the committee or on instructions from the Treasury, and on what grounds?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): The evidence in question was placed in the Library. The chairman of the committee did not make any request, nor was there any demand for publication and, as in the case of the two previous committees, the evidence was not published.

Miss Rathbone: Is not the growing practice of omitting to print the evidence given before committees a part of the general policy of the Government in the approach to a system of Fascism, of which the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) so much approves?

Sir K. Wood: I do not think so. It is for them to make up their own mind on the matter.

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health whether the decision not to print the minutes of evidence of the Departmental Committee on Nursing was taken by the chairman of the committee or on instructions from the Treasury. and on what grounds?

Sir K. Wood: No decision has yet been taken as to the publication of the evidence given before this committee.

Sir A. Wilson: Would my right hon. Friend ask the members of the committee to consider publishing the evidence at convenient intervals as it is given, because objections are entertained to representative persons giving evidence which is not available to those whom they represent?

Sir K. Wood: I hesitate to interfere with the discretion of the chairman of the committee in this matter.

Sir J. Nall: Does the Minister appreciate the fact that many witnesses purporting to give evidence as representatives of various organisations, give evidence which would not be tolerated by the members of those organisations?

AMERICAN BOXER (PERMIT).

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Labour what difficulties exist in respect to granting a labour permit to the American boxer Phil Zwick, as he is not in the category of boxers banned by the British Boxing Board of Control?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I am informed that Mr. Zwick's licence to box in this country has been suspended until 27th June by the British Boxing Board of Control, following an inquiry by the stewards. I understand that an appeal against the suspension has been made to the board's stewards of appeal and will be heard shortly.

Mr. Groves: Can the Minister tell me why the Ministry of Labour did not grant a permit to this man as he is not in what we call the inferior category?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It has been for a long time the practice of the Ministry to pay due regard to the recommendations of the British Boxing Board of Control. It is a practice which has been continued under different Governments, and I think, as this matter is now under appeal, it would be undesirable to discuss the matter further at this stage.

Mr. Groves: May I take it that the Minister is not paying undue regard to the British Boxing Board of Control?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MIDDLETON-IN-TEESDALE.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons on the register in the area served by the Middleton-in-Teesdale Employment Exchange, County Durham, on 31st January, 28th February, and 31st March, respectively, in 1931; and the corresponding number of persons signing on as unemployed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the statement:
The number of insured persons in any area can be ascertained only once in each year on the basis of the number of unemployment books exchanged by insured persons at the annual exchange of books beginning in July. At the July, 1931, exchange of books 540 unemployment books were exchanged by insured persons, aged 16–64, at the Middleton-in-Teesdale Employment Exchange. The numbers of insured persons aged 16–64 recorded as unemployed at that Exchange in the first three months of 1931 were as follow:

26th January, 1931
…
171


23rd February, 1931
…
158


23rd March, 1931
…
150

ASSISTANCE (WINTER ALLOWANCE).

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there has been a reduction in the amounts of the winter allowances made by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): There has been no change in the Regulations governing this matter. By virtue of the general discretionary powers contained in these Regulations, additions to the unemployment assistance allowances have since November last been made in many cases, in order to meet the special circumstances arising out of the concurrence of winter conditions with an increase in the prices of certain commodities. With the passing of winter and the fall in the cost of commodities the Board's officers are no longer legally empowered to make or maintain additions on this basis and must now have regard to the changed circumstances when making new assessments and in reviewing current assessments. The Board have issued an instruction to their officers on the subject, of which I will place a copy in the Library. I understand that the Board have had the whole position under consideration with a view to securing specific authority by Regulation to enable them in appropriate cases to meet the additional expenses arising out of winter conditions as such, and that they propose accordingly to submit a Draft Regulation to me at an early date. Such a Regulation would require the approval of Parliament before it came into force.

Mr. George Hall: Did the Board consult with the local advisory committees before this reduction was agreed upon, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this announcement will cause consternation in hundreds of thousands of the poorest homes in the country and that it will be regarded as mean and contemptible to bring about this reduction?

Mr. Brown: I cannot understand that because this is the first time this has been done by way of increase in the winter allowance. More than that, since the London County Council's public assistance winter allowance runs only from about 20th October to 19th April as a maximum, and the Board's winter allowance has been longer, I fail to see where the "mean and contemptible" comes in.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question whether the local advisory committees were consulted before this reduction was agreed upon?

Mr. Brown: As I pointed out in the answer, this was done under the general discretionary powers of the Board.

Mr. Hall: What is the real function of the local advisory committees if they cannot be consulted on matters of this kind?

Mr. G. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council a few months ago raised the allowances of those on public assistance because of the increased cost of living and other reasons, and made that increase permanent?

Mr. Brown: On the proper occasion, when the new Regulation is produced, I shall be happy to compare the Board's figures with the London County Council's figures.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the House what is the actual difference between the winter prices and the so-called summer prices? Is he aware, for instance, that old potatoes now are almost uneatable and that new ones cost 6½d. a pound?

Mr. Brown: That is a particular case which does not give the picture. The picture as we have it over the whole field is that on 1st November the cost-of-living index figure was 160, and on 1st April 154.

Miss Ward: As my right hon. Friend is proposing to introduce an amending Regulation, will he consider at the same time any other amending Regulations if they are considered necessary?

Mr. Brown: That is another question. This deals with the specific point about the Board's winter allowance.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Minister and his policy in connection with unemployment have been definitely repudiated by his constituents in Leith?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir.

JAMAICA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the fact that wages of under 2s. a day are being paid by Messrs. Tate and Lyle to their employé's on sugar plantations in Jamaica, he will take steps to institute a minimum wage for that island?

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Mr. Cross): I have been asked to reply. The Governor has recently appointed, with my right hon. Friend's


approval, two Commissioners to examine labour conditions generally and to collect particulars of the wages of the lowest-paid classes of labourers. It would be premature to attempt to fix a minimum wage until the Commissioners have reported and the Governor has made recommendations on the report. My right hon. Friend has no particulars regarding the various rates of wages now being paid, but from such information as is available it appears that the average daily wage of field labourers on the plantations in question is in excess of the figure quoted by the hon. Member.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware of the terribly depressed condition of the field labourers; and would the Department not state that one of the first things any Commission ought to do, is to make an immediate recommendation for increased wages for these labourers?

Mr. Cross: I have already indicated that my right hon. Friend is making the inquiries which he must necessarily make before taking any action.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any kind of trade union organisation exists in Jamaica; and, if so, whether it is recognised by employers or the Government?

Mr. Cross: As my right hon. Friend has stated before in this House, machinery exists in Jamaica for the setting up of trade unions. He is not aware how many such unions have been registered under the law, but he has recently been informed by the Governor that, while no trade union for workers in the sugar industry only exists, there is a union which claims to represent all classes of labour and may have sugar workers amongst its members. The Governor intimates, however, that owing to dissensions among its leaders, the union has lost influence amongst many of the labourers in different parts of the island.

Mr. Gallacher: Have the workers in Jamaica the right to form their own independent trade unions, apart from existing Government machinery for setting up trade unions?

Mr. Creech Jones: Is the Minister aware that there is a definite interference with the right of assembly and also with

the legitimate functions of trade unions; and will he make representations to have the existing restrictions removed?

Mr. Cross: I will inform my right hon. Friend of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the facilities for forming trade unions in Jamaica are equal to, less than, or more than, those in Soviet Russia?

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (EMPLOYES).

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of skilled workmen received notice to terminate their employment at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, on 30th April last, on the ground that there was a shortage of work; and will he state the reasons for this and whether there is a prospect of re-employment of these workmen?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The workmen referred to, about 10 in number, were engaged on a temporary basis for a specific piece of work, entirely outside the main production programme, which has now been finished. Should a suitable opportunity arise, the re-employment of these men could be considered.

Mr. Green: Does the Minister feel that such action is likely to assist the Government in their desire to get the trade unions to expedite the output of munitions?

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether employé's of railway companies are being permitted by their employers to enrol as volunteers under local authorities air-raid precautions schemes?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am informed that the companies are placing no obstacle in the way of employé's desiring to enrol as volunteers under air-raid precaution schemes of local authorities, but have warned them that their hours of duty under such schemes must necessarily be subject during an emergency to the railway service having first claim upon their services.

Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that railway employé's feel that the warning has been given in such a form, that they are receiving no encouragement to join in the local authorities' air-raid precautions schemes; and is he further aware that uncertainty as to the attitude of the employers as to these schemes, is one of the biggest factors in preventing people from volunteering?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate the importance in the air-raid precautions schemes of the railways themselves as essential services, but I will look further into the point.

Sir J. Nall: Is it not a fact that the railway companies are going to considerable trouble and expense in training and organising men for this work?

Mr. Morrison: Will the Minister not ask the railway companies to make a public statement to the effect that they have no objection to their employé's volunteering under local authorities' schemes, provided that the work required from them by the local authorities is done in their off-time?

Mr. Lloyd: In view of what the hon. Member has said I will inquire further into the matter.

Miss Ward: asked the Home Secretary which local authorities in Northumberland have submitted air-raid precaution schemes; and which schemes have been approved?

Mr. Lloyd: As regards air-raid general precautions schemes under the Air-Raid Precautions Act, no formal schemes have yet been received from any authority in the county, but the preparation of schemes is progressing steadily in accordance with the normal practice under the Act of advance authorisation, and in the City of Newcastle in particular the detailed preparations are well advanced. Fire precautions schemes have so far been received from eight authorities in the county, and two of these schemes have been substantially settled with the authority concerned.

Miss Ward: How many other of the advanced provisional schemes have been agreed upon?

Mr. Lloyd: I think I ought to inform the hon. Lady that the normal procedure under the Act is not to wait for

formal schemes, but whenever any particular detailed proposal comes forward, such, for example, as arrangements for training or the appointment of an organiser, to approve that particular proposal at once, so that the general work of the scheme can proceed as quickly as possible.

Miss Ward: How many volunteers have come forward from Newcastle?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand there are about 2,000 wardens in Newcastle, and about 50 per cent. of these are already trained.

Mr. Thorne: How is it that the Irish Free State have not bothered about air-raid precautions? What is the reason?

METROPOLITAN POLICE (RESIGNATION).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the number of approved short-term police officers that have left the Metropolitan Police Force since the introduction of the regulation allowing them to do so; and will he give particulars of what portion of the gratuity amounting to, approximately, £180 to be received by constables of approved short service on leaving the Metropolitan Police Force after completing 10 years' service, will have been paid by them as subscriptions and/or deducted from their pay?

Mr. Lloyd: No special regulation has been made nor is one necessary to enable policemen to resign, and the total number of short-service men who have left the Force since the scheme began is, including all causes, 346. A man retiring at the completion of To years' service will have had rateable deductions amounting to approximately £95 made from his pay during that time.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in cases where these officers resign and join other police forces, any payment is made by those forces to reimburse the expense of their training?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SPEED LIMIT (MALL AND CONSTITUTION HILL).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions for exceeding


the speed limit on the Mall and on Constitution Hill for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; the number of police officers engaged during this period in working these particular speed traps; the amount of time occupied on this duty; the estimated cost of their salaries for loss of time and expenses whilst so occupied; and the total amount of fines and costs imposed upon motorists who were charged with these breaches of the law?

Mr. Lloyd: During the 12 months ended on 30th April there were 630 such prosecutions; six sergeants and 12 constables were employed for a total number of 3,672 hours at an estimated salary cost of £560. The total amount of fines and costs imposed on the persons convicted was £626 14s. 6d.

Mr. Day: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that it may be better to have these officers employed in uniform so as to prevent breaches of the law rather than hiding behind hedges to catch people after they have inadvertently exceeded the speed limit?

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, VICTORIA GATE, HYDE PARK.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the continually increasing congestion of traffic at Victoria Gate, Hyde Park; what is the cause of the great delay in carrying out the urgently needed traffic improvements at this point, which have been approved by the Ministry and all public bodies concerned for many months past; and how the necessary expenditure is being apportioned between the Ministry of Transport and the London County Council?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): I am fully aware of the traffic difficulties at this point. My right hon. Friend has offered to the London County Council a grant from the Road Fund of 50 per cent. towards the cost of an improvement scheme. The council inform me that alternative schemes have been submitted to them and that until these have been examined they are not in a position to reach a decision.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not a fact that for some two if not three years past every

kind of alternative scheme has been considered, and how is it that the London County Council are so behind the times in not considering these schemes?

ROAD HAULIERS' LICENCES.

Mr. Remer: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that every application for running commercial vehicles by road haulage contractors is being opposed by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, and that in most cases the Commissioner is refusing these licences; and, as the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company have been on many occasions unable to supply main-line trucks for the convenience of traders, and that, therefore, serious delay and inconvenience has been caused, will he introduce legislation with a view to preventing such hindrances to trade in future?

Captain Hudson: My information does not accord with the statements made in the question, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Mr. Remer: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in Manchester it is impossible on several days to get mainline trucks from the railway companies at the same time that they are opposing all applications for road vehicle licences?

Captain Hudson: The position is rather complicated, and I understand that the case is not as stated. Therefore, I want more information.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it not the case that traders are put to enormous expense through the fact that the railway companies oppose in a great many unnecessary cases, and cannot my hon. and gallant Friend use his influence with the railway companies not to pursue this dog-in-the-manger policy much longer?

SPECIAL AREAS (MATERNAL WELFARE).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in the Special Areas fail to provide, where necessary, additional nourishment to expectant mothers at all stages of pregnancy?

Sir K. Wood: All the 35 authorities responsible for maternity and child welfare services in the Special Areas supply


additional nourishment in the form of milk to expectant mothers, and all but five of them do so at all stages of pregnancy. Twenty-two of the 35 authorities supply other forms of additional nourishment to mothers, the great majority at all stages of pregnancy. In addition, the scheme introduced by the National Birthday Trust Fund for providing other additional food for certain groups of expectant mothers is in operation in most of the Special Areas.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend consider making representations to the various authorities which do not do so, to ask whether they will carry out what I understand is the policy approved by my right hon. Friend himself?

Sir K. Wood: I am following these matters up.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the best nourishment comes from fresh produce from the Vale of Evesham?

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING).

Miss Ward: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any evidence as to the extent to which the Shops (Sunday Trading Restriction) Act is causing hardship to small one-man businesses?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has received complaints during the last two or three months from about 30 shopkeepers in different parts of the country, at least half of whom indicated that they were proprietors of one-man businesses. My right hon. Friend has also been informed by various hon. Members and others that they have received similar complaints.

Miss Ward: What is my hon. Friend proposing to do about it?

Mr. Higgs: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Act is also causing considerable inconvenience to the shopping public in certain districts in West Birmingham, and is it not possible for him to give the matter consideration on those lines?

Sir John Haslam: Has not my hon. Friend received evidence that this Act has caused great satisfaction and pleasure to many single-shop proprietors, and also

to many of the larger establishments, and that the greater benefit has resulted to the vast number of shopkeepers throughout the country?

Sir J. Nall: Is it not the case that this matter is bound to be controversial, whichever way it is settled, and that the present difficulty is due to the absurd anomalies which have arisen under the last Bill; and will the Department take steps to have it settled properly one way or the other?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is it now the policy of certain sections of the Government still further to commercialise the Sunday?

CINEMA APPARATUS (SABOTAGE).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle (for Mr. Denville): asked the Home Secretary whether the attention of the Metropolitan Police has been called to the cases of sabotage in various cinemas as a result of the refusal of the cinema industry to recognise the claims of the electrical trade union; and whether he will instruct the Chief Commissioner to investigate any action of the kind?

Mr. Lloyd: During the last two weeks the Metropolitan Police have received reports of a few cases in which malicious damage has been done to apparatus in cinemas, and these cases are now under investigation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister for what he is proposing to suspend the Eleven o' Clock Rule?

The Prime Minister: We are proposing to suspend the Eleven o' Clock Rule in order to obtain the business up to and including the second Order. We also propose to take to-night Orders 3 and 4, being the Report stages of the two Money Resolutions relating to the Eire Bill, which are exempted business.

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 81.

Division No. 197.]
AYES.
[3.35 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Everard, W. L.
Petherick, M.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Findlay, Sir E.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fleming, E. L.
Pilkington, R


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Foot, D. M.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Furness, S. N.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Granvi[...]e E. L.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Remer, J. R.


Blair, Sir R.
Grimston, R. V.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bossom, A. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boulton, W. W.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Brss, Sir W.
Hambro, A. V.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brisooe, Capt. R. G.
Hannah, I. C.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Brown. Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Salmon, Sir I.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bullook, Capt. M.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Savery, Sir Servington


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Scott, Lord William


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hepworlh, J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cary, R. A.
Higgs, W. F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Holmes, J. S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgh't'n)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Smithers, Sir W.


Channon, H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Clarrv, Sir Reginald
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Colman, N. C. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Tate, Mavis C.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvs.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Latham, Sir P.
Touche, G. C.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leeoh, Sir J. W.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lewis, O.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Cranborne, Viscount
Lipson, D. L.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lloyd, G. W.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Lyons, A. M.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Cross, R. H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield
Warrender,Sir V.


Crossley, A. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Clowder, J. F. E.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Culverwell, C. T.
Magnay, T.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maitland, A.
Wells, S. R.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


De Chair, S. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


De la Bère, R.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Doland, G. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Moreing, A. C.
Wise, A. R.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Dunglass, Lord
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S.(Cirencester)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Eastwood, J. F.
Nall, Sir J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ellis, Sir G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Patrick, C. M.
Captain Dugdale and Mr.


Errington, E.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Munro.




NOES.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Broad, F. A.
Dalton, H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Banfield, J. W.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Barr, J.
Charleton, H. C.
Day, H.


Batey, J.
Chater, D.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Bellenger, F. J.
Cluse, W. S.
Ede, J. C.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Benson, G.
Daggar, G.
Gallacher, W.







Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Grenfell, D. R.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McEnten, V. La T.
Summerskill, Edith


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Montague, F.
Thurtle, E.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tinker, J. J.


Hardie, Agnes
Naylor, T. E.
Tomlinson, G.


Henderson, A. Kingswinford)
Paling, W.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.
Walker, J.


Hopkin, D.
Pethiek-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Watkins, F. C.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton. T. M.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)



Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.

EVIDENCE BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.43 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Members of the House may have read a recent report of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which recently considered the problem of housing in the rural areas, and I think hon. Members will agree with me that they gave a considerable amount of attention to the operation of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. The Committee was a representative one. The chairman was the Bishop of Winchester, and the other members of the Committee were Lord Crawford, Mrs. Dollar, a well-known Labour representative, the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), Mr. Hob-house, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Schomberg, Sir Raymond Unwin, and Sir Seymour Williams, all very expert people on this subject. They stated that all the witnesses who came before the committee agreed that "there was considerable scope for further work "under those Acts, and that they themselves regarded them" as an essential supplementary part in the machinery of rural housing legislation." The House will, no doubt, remember that the first Act, introduced in 1926, was designed to meet the situation in country districts of numbers of old cottages still sound in structure but lacking the improvements and conveniences which are essential to a satisfactory home, and it empowered the local authorities, on certain conditions, to assist the owners of such cottages to improve them and to introduce modern amenities. A further Bill was introduced, and became law, during the time and at the instance of the Labour Government extending the original Act. A Member whom we shall always recall with regard, respect and affection, the late Mr. Adamson, introduced the Bill at that time, and it is interesting to observe what he said upon that occasion:

 Much of the work that has been done under the Act has consisted of the introduction of water, baths, and W.C's. into houses; the provision of sculleries; the renewal of defective roofs and floors; the adoption of measures to do away with dampness and the provision of larger windows to permit of better lighting and ventilation.
Mr. Adamson also pointed out the conditions under which loans or grants could be given. Certain of the conditions provided that during the 20 years following the grant the houses must not, in his words,
 be occupied except by a person whose income is such that he would not ordinarily pay a rent in excess of that paid by agricultural workers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1931; cols. 881–2, Vol. 251.]
He also stated that an owner cannot, in respect of improvements, increase the rent by more than 3 per cent.—now 4 per cent. —on the sum which he himself has to pay for the works of improvement after deducting the amount of the grant. He also assured the House that information obtained from certain counties appeared to indicate that in a number of cases of people outside the special category of farm servants, the permitted increase for houses occupied by workers have not been made while in others the increase was being made up to 3 per cent.
Since that time there has been a progressive increase in the grants made under these Acts. It is true that in the early years, perhaps at the time when Mr. Adamson introduced that legislation, the number of cottages improved in England and Wales was disappointingly low. Up to the end of 1933 the yearly average was 1055, but owing, I think, to the growing interest in the campaign for slum clearance which was then finding expression, during the years from 1934 to 1936 the yearly average increased up 2,068. Since that time we have made considerable efforts to make the Acts more widely known. In November, 1936, communications were made by me to the local authorities, and a large number of specially illustrated pamphlets and posters have been widely distributed up and down the countryside illustrating the advantages of the scheme; and for the last half of 1937, I am glad to say, grants were being given at the rate of something over 4,000 a year, an increase of 100 per cent. on the highest previous figure. So far as total numbers are concerned, the number of


cottages in Scotland which have been improved under the terms of these Acts is far greater than in this country. I suppose that in Scotland they know a good thing when they see it better than we do. They amount to about 30,000, taking the grants promised by 31st December, 1937, as compared with some 16,000 for England and Wales. This progress encourages the belief that still more can be done under these Acts.
This belief is confirmed by the considerable disparity in the number of cottages dealt with in neighbouring areas in England and Wales. The disparity appears to be accounted for largely by the extent to which publicity has been given or has not been given in different areas regarding the facilities available. Hon. Members may agree with me that progress should be accelerated and the operation of this Measure extended by the general desire throughout the country for a Measure of this kind. That desire can be met to no small degree by the financial provisions of this scheme. There is a general desire for the preservation of country cottages of special charm and agricultural merit. Another reason why we should renew these Acts is that valuable work can be done for the relief of overcrowding by enlarging cottages by the addition of extra bedrooms and in other ways. The sub-committee to which I have referred has considered that matter, as has also the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, and recommendations have been made for certain improvements in the operation and the administration of these Measures. The House will find a number of their recommendations incorporated in the Bill.
I would now refer briefly to some of the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 extends the period of operation of the Act for a further four years up to 30th September, 1942, that is, one year shorter than the period recommended by the Labour Government in bringing forward similar proposals. The date has been chosen to correspond with the date by which any alterations in the subsidy for agricultural housing, provided by the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act would take effect, if any such alterations were made following the review of Exchequer housing subsidies in October, 1941. It is important that the question of terminat-

ing or further extending the Act should be considered in relation to the whole housing situation in the rural areas. By this means we should be able to consider all these matters at the same time. The Acts have always been extended for the same period in Scotland and England, and this practice is followed in the present Bill. The Clause also automatically extends all schemes made under the Acts by local authorities, so as to obviate the necessity for revising them and resubmitting them to the Minister for approval.
Clause 2 gives effect to a recommendation which was made by the English Rural Housing Sub-Committee, that local authorities should be empowered to pay grants by instalments during the progress of the work. It was represented to the committee by a number of witnesses that owners of limited means sometimes had difficulty in financing the work during its progress. This alteration is designed to assist owners in such circumstances. Clause 3 carries out another recommendation of the English Housing Sub-Committee that upon a breach of the special conditions attaching to a grant, or on voluntary repayment of grant, an owner should be required to repay, not as at present, the whole amount of the grant with compound interest, but an amount proportionate to the unexpired portion of the 20-year period during which the conditions applied. The Clause provides similarly for the adjustment of the Exchequer contribution in respect of grants. It was represented to the committee that the liability to repay the whole of the grant with compound interest was one of the principal factors which discouraged owners of cottages from taking advantage of the facilities offered by the Acts, and that this condition would prove increasingly onerous as time went on. For example, an owner who wished to free himself from the special conditions 19 years after the receipt of a grant would be compelled to repay the whole original sum, with compound interest, from the date of payment, notwithstanding that the special conditions had only a few more months to run. Obviously this Amendment should be made, in justice and fairness.
Clause 4 is designed to remove a difficulty which has arisen in Scotland in connection with the fixing of the rent which


may be charged for reconstructed cottages. In certain circumstances, the Act requires, I understand, that local authorities in Scotland should determine the average rent paid by agricultural workers in their districts. In certain districts there are few or no agricultural workers but there are persons of substantially the same economic condition. In such circumstances, the Clause enables a local authority to determine the permissible rent, by reference to the rent paid by persons of substantially the same economic condition as an agricultural worker. Clause 5 applies an additional condition attaching to a grant of money under this scheme, It is that during the period of 20 years for which this grant is being given, reasonable steps must be taken to secure the maintenance of the dwelling so that it is in all respects fit for habitation. That important new condition applies to grants made after the Bill becomes law. The original Act of 1926 precluded a local authority from making a grant unless satisfied that the dwelling, after the completion of the work, would be in all respects fit for habitation, but it did not contain any special provision requiring the maintenance of the dwelling in that state, leaving that point to be dealt with by the local authority under the ordinary law which enables them to require the repair of dwellings found to be not in all respects fit for habitation.
I think the House will find that this condition is an improvement. The application of the additional condition will have the effect of incorporating it in the terms of any lease or agreement for lease or tenancy of the dwelling and of making it enforceable accordingly. Moreover, a local authority will now be in a position to require the repayment of the appropriate proportion of the grant calculated on the basis laid down by Clause 3, if this new condition is not complied with. If the owner has not kept his property in habitable condition, this Clause will come into operation, and the grant will cease. Houses for which grants have already been made to which the new condition will not apply will remain subject to the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Housing Act, 1936, which provides that in a contract for letting a house at not more than £26 a year, or in the case of a tied house, in the contract of employment, there shall be implied a condition

that the house was at the commencement of the tenancy, and an undertaking that it will be kept during the tenancy, in all respects fit for habitation. Moreover, the local housing authority will have all the ordinary powers under the Housing Act to require the repair of such houses.
The object of Clause 6 is to adopt the conditions governing the permissible rent to cases in which a second grant is given under the Acts. The effect of the Clause is to allow an owner to increase the rent payable before the execution of the second instalment of works by 4 per cent. of his own expenditure on these works. Clause 7 is designed to carry out another recommendation made to me and to prevent any evasion of the condition limiting the rent at which improved houses may be let when it is let for the holding of lands. The Clause empowers a local authority to determine in such cases the proportion of the rent charged for both house and land together, which shall be deemed the rent payable in respect of the house.

Mr. Hopkins: Is Clause 7 applicable at all to smallholdings, and if so, is it possible for the smallholder to have assistance under this Bill?

Sir K. Wood: I rather doubt that, but I will make inquiries and will let the hon. Member know later. This power, at any rate so far as the provision of grant under the Bill is concerned, should effectually prevent any evasion of the condition regarding the rent of the house by the charging of an unreasonable rent for the land. Clause 8 makes the necessary alteration in the machinery for charging the expenses of a county council, who have previously been the local authority under the Acts in a district where the administration of the Acts is later transferred to the rural district council. Clause 9 is based on the recommendation of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. It will enable a local authority to give to an owner who has received, before August, 1935 (the date when the overcrowding provisions of the Housing Acts came into operation), the maximum grant of £100, an additional grant, not exceeding £50 (or two-thirds of the cost of the works) for the purpose of carrying out works to abate overcrowding. The Clause also provides for the giving of a further grant in cases where the owner did not receive the maximum grant on the first application.
Clause 10 also contains special provisions for Scotland, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is here to deal, if necessary later, with questions affecting Scotland. The Clause authorises Exchequer contributions at a rate of three-quarters instead of one-half towards the expenses of county councils in the Highlands and Islands. It also removes an anomaly in the existing conditions relating to grants to small landholders in Scotland.
That, briefly, is a fairly accurate statement of the proposals of the Bill. I am now enabled to answer the question that was put to me by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin). The Acts allow a grant to a smallholder as long as he is of the same economic condition as an agricultural worker. The conditions are similar whether the resident is the owner or tenant.

Mr. Hopkin: How does Clause 7 apply to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given?

Sir K. Wood: I will examine that matter. Having detailed the general provisions of the Bill I may add that I am, of course, naturally desirous that the administration shall be conducted with care and efficiency. No one wants patchwork repair or work done which does not result in the provision of good houses. I think, however, it can be said that experience gained in administering the Acts shows in fact that good houses are being provided. The Acts provide that no grant should be made for works costing less than £50. These are minimal works. But the average grants have been over £80, which means a minimum average expenditure of about £120 a house. In fact, the actual expenditure in a large number of cases has been much in excess of the figures on which a grant can be claimed. For the maximum grant of £100 a minimum cost of 150 would be required, and in many cases over £200 has been spent. It is of the utmost importance that all work done under the Acts should be done thoroughly and well, and that when the works are completed the cottages should be thoroughly satisfactory. I can speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as well as myself in saying that we are continuing to take all steps open to us where it is necessary to press on local authorities the importance of such conditions being strictly complied with.

Mr. T. Johnston: The conditions or regulations?

Sir K. Wood: I have communicated with the local authorities and I will again stress the matter in that way. I shall also be asking the district councils to take steps to ascertain for themselves cottages which require conditioning, and, where owners are unwilling to undertake this work, to consider the advisability of exercising their powers to buy them and themselves carry out the reconditioning work. Of course, where the county council is the authority the list of cottages requiring reconditioning can be sent to them. I need hardly say that co-operation between the two councils, the county councils and the district councils, in this as in so many things that concern the administration of the Ministry of Health, is essential; it is only in that way that standards of fitness and other matters arising can be satisfactorily settled. I endorse what was said by the Advisory Committee as to discrimination in the administration of the Act against owners with means. The local authority, of course, has a complete discretion to decide whether to grant any particular application, but as the Committee state in their recommendations to me:
 Discrimination against owners with means is contrary to the intentions of the Acts and likely to result in depriving tenants of agricultural cottages of the benefits the Acts were intended to afford them.
I must refer just briefly to the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I suppose that in modern times few people have bowled so many political no-balls, and I am afraid he is going to bowl another this afternoon. I think he may have some difficulty in justifying his position to-day. I would draw his attention, and that of hon. Members opposite if they contemplate following the right hon. Gentleman in the rather devious way he would lead them, to what has already been said on behalf of their party and by the Labour Government when they were, of course, in a position of responsibility. The late Mr. William Adamson, then Secretary of State for Scotland, said on 21st April, 1931, in commending the Act to the House:
 Considerable advantage has been taken of its provisions and it has been the means of providing improved and healthier housing accommodation for a large number of rural workers 


If that was the case then, much more is it so to-day, as I have shown by the figures I have quoted. It is, therefore, very difficult to see how the right hon. Gentleman can endeavour to lead his followers against a useful Act so commended to the House by Mr. Adamson. In that same speech Mr. Adamson also stated:
 Each year has seen a progressive increase in the number of applications made for grants, and in the number of houses covered by approved applications."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21St April, 1931; cols. 821 and 823; Vol. 251.]
Of course, that is more than ever the truth to-day. I next call attention to the statement of the right hon. Member for Wakefield himself. Sometimes, of course, I cannot quite follow the variations and twists and turns of the right hon. Gentleman, who has certainly done a good many over this Measure. I know that he always professed great personal dislike of this Measure, but so he has of many Measures which have proved of increasing use and importance to the country, particularly to the workers. I asked him to state his position when the Labour Government brought forward their proposal. A very interesting statement he made. I shall not trouble the House with the whole of it, but the right hon. Gentleman then justified his support of the Measure. He said this, almost as a peroration:
 I did not believe and I never have believed that this method would prove to be acceptable on a very large scale to the local authorities of this country, but in so far as it can be used to make a practical contribution to the solution of the housing problem in rural areas, we ought to give it support.
He then said
 I have done what has been possible to encourage the adoption of the Act during the past few years, but I have been disappointed with the results. I was finally brought round"—
this is the passage I commend to the House—the right hon. Gentleman goes round and round again—
 and wholeheartedly brought round, to agreeing to back a Bill for the extension of the Act of 1926 because of the relative success it had met with in Scotland. That is the real reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are here to support the Bill.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21St April, 1931; col. 84o, Vol. 251.]
Why has not the right hon. Gentleman who now sits beside him exercised the

same influence as the late Mr. Adamson exercised?
There is one other matter to which I would call the attention of the House in connection with the action of the Labour Opposition this afternoon, in the hope that I may still prevent them from adopting an unreasonable and unsatisfactory course, which I am sure would be very much deplored up and down the country. That is the statement of the then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who wound up the very interesting proceedings on the Second Reading of the Labour Government's Measure. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), who in many respects was a very efficient and satisfactory Under-Secretary of State, said:
 The object of extending this Act for five years "—
that is one year longer than the time for which I am now asking the House to extend it, so the Labour Government were in front of me in that respect—
 is to keep going the good work which we have already seen started in Scotland. We do not want it stopped. We want authorities who have been taking advantage of it to take still further advantage of it, and we want those authorities that have been negligent in dealing with disreputable houses in their districts, which by some expenditure of public and private money could he made habitable, to get that work done.
I remember feeling very much encouraged when he went on to say:
 I can guarantee that, so far as administration is concerned "—
that is to say, of this Measure—
 my right hon. Friend and myself will put all the energy and all the vim ' that is possible behind it, in order to get the maximum number of houses improved under this Measure if it is continued as an Act of Parliament for another five years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1931; cols. 873–5, Vol. 251.]
Is it too much to ask the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon to put aside his little prejudices in regard to this proposal, and to help me in putting all the "vim" and energy that is possible into this Measure, and so bringing at any rate a certain amount of assistance to our rural housing problem? The Government believe that an improvement in housing conditions among the agricultural population can be made in a number of ways. Unfit houses which cannot be made fit require to be demolished and replaced by


new houses; overcrowding needs to be abated in the country often as much as in the towns, and, again new houses in the countryside are usually necessary for this purpose. The Act which we have recently passed deals with both these aspects of housing, and has provided for a continuance of Exchequer assistance for a period of another four years. Apart from the new houses that are needed for this purpose, a further supply of new houses is required for the general needs of the agricultural population, and the Act of this year has provided a generous Exchequer contribution for this necessary purpose also. The present Bill, which is complementary—I emphasise that—to all these provisions, will, I consider, enable us to continue our efforts to improve existing houses, and will, I hope, play an increasingly important part in providing improved and healthier accommodation for large numbers of our rural workers. For these reasons I venture to commend its Second Reading to the House.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: On the last occasion on which this Bill was before the House, I referred to the jaunty speech of the right hon. Gentleman. His jauntiness increases with his years. The strength of his argument, however, does not increase. Not that he has ever been noted in this House for argument. I should be surprised if any Member really thought that the right hon. Gentleman was as strong in argument as he was in his jauntiness of spirit. As I understand it, the real moral of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is housing by publicity—housing by advertising to local authorities. It is news to me that landlords are unaware what advantages they can gain under the law. The right hon. Gentleman is going to boost this Bill, when it is on the Statute Book, by more advertising. That does not seem to me to carry us very far. We put down our Amendment in order to express our view that the continuance of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, more especially in view of the recent reduction of the subsidy for slum clearance, is not adequate to deal with the problem of housing in rural areas.
I anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman would bring up my past utterances, and that is why I have armed

myself with my speeches of 1926 and 1931. All that is perfectly true. I remember coming to this House on a hot day, the day following August Bank Holiday, in 1926, to move the rejection of the Bill on its Second Reading. I was at that time supported by the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, whose strength of language outvied my own poor, weak words. I opposed the Bill on grounds which I still believe to be sound; I have not changed my mind about the substantial merits of the Bill, and I propose a little later to quote some of the words that I used against it. When we reassembled in the autumn of 1926—I am giving the full facts of my private life in connection with this matter, because the right hon. Gentleman has not told the worst about me in regard to my attitude on the Bill—the remaining stages of the Bill were taken, and on 6th December, 1926, I moved a reasoned Amendment for the rejection of the Bill on its Third Reading in very strong terms. I remember how heated the discussions were in Committee and on Report. A large number of Amendments were put down by us and were rejected, and I am wondering whether, if we had been prepared to be a little more reasonable than the right hon. Gentleman appears to think we were on that occasion, we should have met with any better fate.
That Measure was due to expire in 1931. I had never liked it. My words about it are in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted some of them, and, if I may say so, he has quoted some of my kindest words about it. But it was the duty of the then Legislature to carry that Act out as far as it could. It has been a dismal failure as regards England and Wales; the right hon. Gentleman does not doubt that It had been used more extensively—a good deal more extensively—in Scotland, and in May, 1931, my late right hon. Friend Mr. William Adamson moved the Second Reading of a Bill to continue the Housing (Rural Workers) Act for a further five years. I remember the right hon. Gentleman's glee on that occasion. A schoolboy let loose was nothing to him; he really was a model of bubbling, sparkling merriment on that occasion. I replied, and again I have the words here—words which I propose to quote a little later. Now the


right hon. Gentleman's proposal is to continue the Act in an amended form, with some slight modifications, until 1942.
It is a great pity, in my view, that the housing problem has not been satisfactorily settled and solved by now, and it will not be settled in 1942. The amount of grants paid up to the end of last year, after a little over II years of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, is over £4,000,000. That has been devoted to cockering up and lengthening the life of something like 47,000 dwellings, each grant being, as I understand it, in respect of a single dwelling. It was left to the National Government in 1931 to kill a Rural Housing Act which had only been put on the Statute Book in July of that year. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite regard this with amusement; I regard it as a great tragedy. Our figures were never challenged. With a grant of £2,000,000 for capital expenditure, I undertook to build 40,000 new rural cottages. The right hon. Gentleman has spent more than that already in fiddling about with cottages many of which could not possibly be reconstructed to conform with modern standards. What is the output going to be under the new Bill? There were 47,543 grants made up to the end of last year. That is at the rate of about 4,000 a year for England, Wales and Scotland—not a very large number. It is estimated that from June of this year to the end of September, 1942, a period of four and a-quarter years, the number of dwellings in respect of which grants will be paid will be 35,000, or round about 8,000 per year. That means that the Ministers responsible for this Bill are seeking to double the rate of reconditioning, and, when they have succeeded, it will appear that there will have been reconditioned about 82,000 houses in Great Britain, presumably at a cost of well over £8,000,000. I suggest that the money could have been far better spent by devoting it to the building of new houses under conditions not so restrictive as those which will apply to the houses which are being improved.
The right hon. Gentleman is bound to admit that the Act has not been used to nearly the same extent in England and Wales as it has in Scotland. With a much smaller population, Scotland has reconditioned about twice the number of

houses, partly, perhaps, because of the greater acquisitiveness and financial genius and foresight of Scottish landlords, but partly, also, because of the deplorable state of rural housing in Scotland and the difficulties which appear to stand in the way of providing new houses north of the Border—a matter which, I think, needs a good deal more examination than it has so far received. It was because of the difficulties of building new houses and the appalling state of rural housing in Scotland that many—I think I may say all—of my colleagues looked on the Bill with a far more friendly eye than they would otherwise have done. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, and he quoted their report. I can give some other quotations, not nearly so favourable to him. I had better read the whole passage:
 The evidence given by the Scottish Land and Property Federation, the National Farmers' Union, the Chamber of Agriculture, the Scottish Women's Rural Institutes and the Association of County Councils was in favour of the extension of the Acts. On the other hand the Farm Servants' Union criticised the Acts on the ground that they were largely used to prolong the life of dwellings which had radical defects, and thus to continue for form workers a lower standard of housing than is accepted for other workers.
What becomes of the right hon. Gentleman's statements in his speech?
 Appendix II reveals that in the parishes surveyed only slightly more than half of the dwellings reconstructed or improved with assistance under the Acts have been satisfactorily reconstructed. If the conditions revealed by this report are applicable to the rest of Scotland—and we have no reason to believe that the parishes are exceptional—there has been a grave waste of public money in the administration of the Acts.
I do not want to continue the quotation, but that is a very serious allegation, of a grave misuse of public money. I am bound to say that the Advisory Committee—and some of my colleagues were members of it—came down in favour of giving the Act another lease of life, though for the last time, largely because of considerations to which I have already referred. But we must have some guarantees of improvement in the administration in future. The general words used by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon did not satisfy me. I, personally, attach a great deal of importance to standards of housing. I remember the right hon. Gentleman and his friends


doing their best in 1924, when we were on that side of the House, to keep me sitting here all night, because, in a Schedule to the Bill, I wanted to add the words "and a bathroom."

Mr. Kirkwood: We have educated them a lot since then.

Mr. Greenwood: Not far enough yet. During the passage of the Bill in 1926 we made repeated efforts to get included in the Measure something approaching the standard of housing which we had in the Housing Acts in respect of local authorities. Every attempt was bitterly opposed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, cannot something be done, with greater experience and with the Amendments in the Bill, to establish proper standards of accommodation and amenities? The right hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 9 of his Bill:
 Power to give increased assistance for abatement of overcrowding.
Overcrowding has now become the responsibility of our local authorities. If this Bill is to be used in this way to the advantage of private landlords, this House is entitled to ask that the houses so reconditioned shall fulfil the standards required by local authorities. That seems to me to be essential. I said in 1926 that I was not against the reconditioning of old houses. I do not want to destroy them if they can be made habitable; but the number of working-class dwellings which can be made habitable is a relatively small proportion. That is no solution to the problem. I have said repeatedly that the one solution is not to make secondhand houses or to pass secondhand houses off on the working classes: the real solution is to build working-class houses. I would draw the attention of the House to the Conference of the National Union of Agricultural Workers last week. They never referred to reconditioning, but I happen to know their views, and they are not highly enthusiastic. The whole of their emphasis is on the building of new houses, and on the establishment of standards for rural workers comparable with those now required for industrial workers. Their resolution reads as follows:

While welcoming the efforts to abolish slums and overcrowding in the villages, this Conference considers that the slow rate of progress of building a supply of houses on the countryside at rents farm workers Can

afford to pay is deplorable. Further, this Conference claims that all such houses built shall have reasonable accommodation, proper drainage and sanitation, and adequate piped supply of pure water in each house. This Conference calls upon the Government to take steps at once to expedite the building of at least 100,000 such houses and in no case should any subsidy be granted to a farmer who is to make such a cottage a tied one.

That seems to me a reasonable claim. When the 1926 Bill was before the House I described it on Second Reading as "a rural landlords out-relief Bill." And, of course, it still is. The right hon. Gentleman may have had the kindest remarks given to him. I have taken the trouble to read through the whole Debate. I said:
 This is a Bill that is going to fasten the tied cottage system, which is one of the greatest abuses of the countryside, round the neck of the agricultural worker. It is going to add to the amenities, the prestige, and the pleasantness of rural estates almost entirely by an expenditure of public money. Rural landlords will be able to get £150 worth of work done for £50, which, no doubt, will be an admirable thing for them, but is a robbery from public funds.''— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2850, Vol. 198.]

I said some things harder than that. But there is now another difficulty about this Bill. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has missed his walk in life. Publicity has become his great passion. He attributes the fact that this thing has worked unevenly to differences in the art of publicity among local authorities and others. I do not believe that that is the cause. It is admitted that the Act is far more used in Scotland than in England. In England and Wales a few counties have used it: some have not used it to recondition a single cottage; and yet the housing conditions in those areas where the Act has not been used are possibly as deplorable as in those where it has been used. Legislation of that kind is most unfortunate, because it is not getting justice done. It happens to depend either on the good will of the landlord and his desire to improve his cottage, or on the greed of the landlord who wants to improve the capital value of his estate. That side of it seems well worth further examination.

Now I come to 1931. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that I have been very illogical. In 1931 I would have been willing, personally, to allow the Housing (Rural Workers) Act to die. I would not have lifted a finger to save it, because I believed that there was a better


way, though I had honestly tried to administer it, and had got more out of it than the right hon. Gentleman and the present Prime Minister. The fact, however, that there were these especially great difficulties in Scotland, the complete failure of private enterprise, the difficulties which the local authorities were facing, and the deplorable conditions in housing in the countryside in Scotland, convinced me that it was my duty on that occasion, reluctantly and without any great amount of spirit, to support the continuance of the Measure.

Mr. De Chair: Is that why you used the word "wholeheartedly "?

Mr. Greenwood: I am always wholehearted in support of my colleagues. No man has a right to be in politics unless he is. I was going to quote that very passage. The hon. Member has relieved me of the necessity. Certainly I was wholeheartedly in support, on the very ground that it might be something for an impoverished and sorely-stricken Scottish countryside.
The right hon. Gentleman twitted me with being illogical. The Amendment was put down in order to draw attention to the gravity of the situation and our dissatisfaction with what is being done. Having in 1931, as I have explained, agreed, with some reluctance but honestly, to the continuance of the Act, I cannot logically oppose the Second Reading to-day. If anybody cares to take this as an amusing remark he can do so. I have not changed my mind: I have not withdrawn one argument against the Act; but I face the realities of the existing situation. At the same time, I hope that the Ministers concerned will see that every conceivable step is taken to ensure that houses reconditioned conform to reasonable modern standards. In that task we are prepared to help, and I trust that any possible Amendment which we may put down will not be so readily and contemptuously rejected as our Amendments were in 1926. I am as deeply concerned as the right hon. Gentleman with the housing of the people. I will repeat what I said in 1931, though it is no pleasure to me, when I spoke on the Second Reading. Part of the words were quoted by the right hon. Gentleman but not the words which I prefer myself to remember:

 I have explained once, and I will explain again, that so long as there is an instrument, however imperfect it may be, that can he used to help one single farm worker's family, I am prepared to use it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1931; cols. 838–39, Vol. 251.]
If this Bill can provide worthy habitations for the people of the countryside, though I believe its contribution will be small and that the approach of the Bill is the wrong approach, the time of this House will not have been misspent. If we are not to get some understanding that we are to have qualitative reconditioning and to have something specific either in the form of regulations or a circular or a Schedule to the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will find that he will not get the Bill through the remaining stages very easily. We attach fundamental importance to it. If this is to be a contribution to the housing of the people, the houses must be worthy of the people who are to live in them. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot guarantee that, the Bill is no good to us and will be bitterly opposed in its later stages.

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman move the Amendment on the Order Paper for the rejection of the Bill?

Mr. Greenwood: No, Sir.

4.47 p.m.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: We have listened to a very interesting speech. I do not often trouble the House and I only occasionally speak on Housing Bills, but I have heard most of the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I very well remember his denunciation of the Rural Housing Bill when it was first introduced by the Prime Minister. It is very tempting to twit the right hon. Gentleman, as he suggested we might, on having boxed the compass. I do not want to do that this afternoon, because it is most important that we should get the most out of the Act, and, therefore, the best thing that we can hope for is the co-operation of all parties. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield that when he said that he was surprised that landlords were unaware of the facilities which they could obtain under the old Act, he perhaps had not read the recommendation of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee, because on page 12 they say:


 All rural district councils should be urged to take active steps to ascertain for themselves which cottages require conditioning and to bring the advantages offered by the Acts to the notice of the owners of all such cottages discovered.
I can hardly imagine the Rural Housing Sub-Committee would put this into their report if they had not come across considerable evidence that many landlords do not realise the facilities which they can obtain under the Act. I am glad to note that the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) was on that committee. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wakefield is not fully aware that there are many small landlords. I believe that in the Forest of Dean—in East Dean, I think—many houses which belong to owner-occupiers are being reconditioned. It is very important that men low in the economic scale should know the facilities which are to be obtained under the Act. Therefore, I hope that this Debate will, at any rate, have some effect in waking up the country to the possibilities of the Act. The right hon. Member for Wakefield had to tell us that all would have been well if his rural housing scheme had gone through. He is always a little unfair to the Liberal party when he tells us about the marvellous things that happened in 1930, because it was the late Sir J. Tudor Walters who used to egg him on day after day from the bench opposite. It was only owing to the pressure of the Liberal party that he brought in his Measure, but, unfortunately, it did not have a very great effect. I mention that in passing, because I like to see justice done to the Liberal party as they tried to do their best.
I believe that prejudice has had a good deal to do with the unsuccessful working of the Act. I do not mean only political prejudice, but prejudice on all sides. I have heard of cases of county councils where there was what was called a landlord majority, who said, "We as landlords could not possibly accept assistance under the Act." They have not worked it. No doubt the rich landlord does not want assistance, but the poorer landlord ought to have assistance. It is not possible to discriminate between one and the other. One of the reasons why we have not got as many houses under the Act as we should like is, that some of the local authorities have not been keen or have not realised the possibilities of the

Act. A very good example is given in the excellent report of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of what can be done by a keen council. It is a description of what happened in Devon and East Suffolk. No doubt the hon. Gentleman opposite had something to do with making the Act a success in Devon. In those counties they circularised not only landlords, but land agents and solicitors and anybody who was in touch with people who owned property. They brought the advantages of the Act to their notice. They also used the Press by means of informed articles explaining what could be done under the Act.
I notice in the report that so keen have some people become about the Act and the possibility of reconditioning houses, that local architects have become specialists in this very special branch. I hope that that will be copied in other parts of the country. If the officers of one of these councils saw a house which was suitable to be reconditioned, they brought it to the notice of the landlord, I believe that a lot more might be done in that respect. It is very remarkable—though this report is very much out of date, and no doubt the Minister has more up-to-date figures which perhaps he would give us—that in Devon there were 2,000 applications, 1,446 of which were granted, and in East Suffolk 1,010 applications, of which 784 were granted. In Gloucestershire there were only 233 applications, of which 140 were granted. Although in Gloucestershire we have stone houses of a type which could be reconditioned, our figures do not compare with those of Devon. I mention that to show what can be done where you have a local authority which is keen.
Publicity is of the utmost importance. The right hon. Member for Wakefield twitted the Minister of Health with being anxious to start a publicity campaign. -I hope he is. A lot can be done by getting the Press on your side. The Press, perhaps, do not think that houses are news, but nothing is bigger news, surely, than the housing of the people. If an old house or a mansion is burnt down we see great headlines in the newspapers, but the Minister is also trying to save these houses from destruction. I wish that some of the publicity of the War Office could be brought into this matter. I do not know why it is, but whenever the Secretary of State for War goes on a


journey we see photographs of him getting into an aeroplane or into a tank. We always know what he is doing. We do not see sufficient photographs of the Minister of Health. It would be a very good thing if he could be photographed taking part in reconditioning some of these houses, putting the last bit of straw on the thatched roof, or perhaps having the first bath where the water supply has been laid on. He certainly put the Post Office on the map, and I hope that he will succeed in getting this Bill really to work.
It is suggested in the report that a survey should be made by the local authorities. I see that the Minister supports that and believes it would be a good thing to consider whether, when landlords do not take advantage of the Act, the local authority could buy the houses themselves by compulsory purchase. The disadvantage of this would be that the local authorities who were keen and had worked the Act would buy the houses where the landlords were slack, but the local authorities who had not worked the Act would do nothing at all. The net result would be more reconditioning such as in Devon, but not much progress in the other parts of the country. I would like the Minister of Health to tell us what he is going to do with regard to the local authorities who show no interest in the working of the Act. That is most important. I am very glad to note in the report that the National Federation of Women's Institutes realise that the successful working of the Act depends to a great extent upon the sanitary inspectors. They say that now they have this extra work to do there should be increased remuneration. The Devon County Council do pay increased remuneration per house to sanitary inspectors who are assisting to work the Act. I suggest other county councils should follow this example.
Nobody wants public money to be spent upon reconditioning if it is going to be badly done or the tenants are to live in bad houses. Clause 5 gives the Minister power to impose a condition that, during the period of 20 years, the houses shall not be allowed to fall into bad repair. When he sneers at old houses, the right hon. Member for Wakefield forgets the great value that these houses are to the countryside. We may not have the

best critics and the finest public buildings in the world, but we have the finest countryside. I do not think that anyone who travels through England will deny that. I was travelling in the train the other day with a man who had just come from abroad and he was sneering at our institutions and our democracy but he suddenly looked out of the window and remarked "Heavens, what a lovely country England is." One of the glories of the country has been our rural villages. Since the War, however, we have done our best to destroy them by building ugly new houses, without any regard to line and design. In that destruction the Ministry of Health must bear its share of the responsibility.
If we can save these old houses and put them into a good state of repair, we shall be doing a considerable amount towards keeping the amenities of our countryside. It is not only the landlord or the tenant that gains. The whole village gains. If it is a well-known, beautiful village and people come from miles to see it, that brings trade. The townspeople also gain. It always annoys me to hear people say "Do not go to such-and-such a village, because it is only a sight-seeing village and full of trippers." I am glad to see people coming from the towns to see a lovely village, because they go back in the evening having had a day away from the bustle of the towns, and it has done them good. If we can preserve these old houses—not preserve them in the sense that we make people live in them in uncomfortable circumstances, but preserve them and make them decent to live in, we shall do a great deal to preserve the countryside. The right hon. Member for Wakefield has agreed not to oppose the Bill. I hope that all parties will work so that the Act will succeed, and that we shall recondition the houses and preserve the countryside.

5.6 p.m.

Miss Lloyd George: I find myself to-day in the rather unusual position of supporting and, unless I am very careful, defending the Government. I do so because I believe that we should make the fullest use of every Measure and of every means of improving rural housing, even if the sphere of the Measure is limited, as this Bill certainly is. It is true, as has been said by the right hon.


Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that the majority of houses in rural areas can be dealt with only by demolition. Still, there are a considerable number of cottages which have not yet reached that stage, which are still structurally sound. I do not think that anybody wants to take them down if they are structurally sound and can be made into decent houses for the agricultural workers. It is very important that we should maintain a standard in these houses which are to be reconditioned. If there is any doubt of the definition which, I think, applies, namely, that they must be satisfactory houses? If it is felt that the definition is not adequate, then some further and more specific definition should be made in the Bill. There ought not to be an element of doubt about that.
The Rural Housing Committee, of which I was a member, came to the conclusion, after hearing a good deal of evidence, that a great deal more could be done under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I think that about 1,800 houses a year have been dealt with under the Act. It seems to me that that is a very inadequate number. It has been pointed out—I think the Minister himself pointed it out—that there is a great discrepancy in the use made of the provisions of the Act by rural authorities. The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to that fact, but I do not think he gave the figures, which are very interesting. In the eastern part of Suffolk 800 houses have been reconditioned, and in the western part only 39. It is difficult to believe that the good and the bad housing are so sharply divided in one county. There is the classic example of Devon, with its 1,800 reconditioned houses, and there is Bedford, which has not reconditioned a single house, and Brecon which has reconstructed only six. I should have thought that there was hardly a village in England or Wales where there are not a number of houses which can be improved, either made larger in order to accommodate a family in decent comfort or adapted for modern convenience and comfort.
A good many reasons have been given for the discrepancy to which I have referred. The right hon. Member for Wakefield poured a certain amount of contempt on the value of advertising in pushing these Housing Acts. I do not

agree with him. Someone has said that the Minister has missed his vocation by being in politics. I do not think so. He is an admirable modern Minister, for the reason that he understands the value of publicity and of advertising. That is one of the reasons of his success; I will not say the sole reason, because as a member of the Advisory Committee on Housing I have had an opportunity of admiring his administrative qualities as well. There is no reason to suppose that the housing conditions in Devon are so very much better than they are in any other part of the country. When we looked into the question and received evidence from Devon, we found that there were two or three factors which were responsible. One was undoubtedly the fact that on the local authority there were people who were really enthusiastic about the Act and anxious to work it. I think the main reason was that they advertised the Act in every conceivable way. They issued circulars, they had posters and I believe they even stuck notices outside the police stations. They missed no opportunity.
I hope the local authorities will be encouraged to advertise, but the inspiration and the initiative must come from the Ministry. The initiation of new methods of advertising will, I am sure, be perfectly safe in the hands of the Minister, because he has proved himself a master of that art in the Post Office, at the Ministry of Health, and, less commendably, in the Conservative Central Office. The right hon. Member for Wakefield said that he did not think it was necessary to advertise to landlords the advantages that they were going to gain under the Act. The fact remains that when we complain that sufficient use has not been made of the Act, it must be obvious that the landlords are not fully aware of the advantages which they might gain under the Act.
There is in this connection one point which I should like to raise. The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the suggestion in the report that certain local authorities were reluctant to give grants to landlords with means, and that the Committee on the whole felt that that discrimination was wrong. I must make it perfectly clear—I thought I had done so at the time—that I do not take that view. I can understand the reluctance of the local authorities. This Act was meant to assist the cottage owner who through lack of means was no longer able to carry out


the repairs. We realise the position of a great many agricultural landlords to-day. The industry of agriculture is suffering from the fact that for various reasons agricultural landlords are no longer able to carry out their responsibility in housing and in equipping their farms. No one can deny that fact, nor can anyone deny that there are a great many small landlords. I find it very hard to justify the giving of grants to landlords with considerable means. Under the Act as it stands Lord Nuffield could apply for a grant, and get it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sir John Eller-man."] There is a case in point. Sir John Ellerman was, I think, the wealthiest man in the whole of these islands.
I have listened to arguments most eloquently put from the other side of the House about the position of the man who, through no fault of his own, has been long unemployed. It is said that no public money should be dispensed without careful scrutiny being made into the man's means and the means of his family. They tell us that it is possible that other members of the family may be bringing in wages, and that there may be contributions which, if they are not being made, ought to be made. You must scrutinise every penny if you are going to dispense public funds. How often have we heard that argument from the other side of the House. I find it indefensible, if we are to have a means test for the unemployed, not to have a means test for the landlord as well. I thought that I should like to make that point definitely clear. If the landlord can afford to put these cottages into decent repair, he should do so without assistance from public funds. On this point I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the recommendation of the sub-committee:
 Where owners are unwilling to undertake the reconditioning, we suggest that the local authority should consider the advisability of exercising their powers to buy the cottages, if necessary by compulsion, and themselves carry out the reconditioning.
I should like to see that power, which has been there ever since the principal Act was passed, much more definitely used. It would do more to advertise this Bill than any amount of publicity if you had many cases in the country of compulsory purchase where landlords had failed to carry out their duty.
I was interested at the solicitude with which the Minister urged the right hon. Member for Wakefield not to vote against the Bill because of the harm it would do him with the electors. It was a very refreshing departure from the ordinary advice one hears across the Floor of the House. The Minister twitted the right hon. Gentleman on the change in his attitude since 1931. I think the Minister himself has changed his attitude in many respects since that date. No one knows better than the Minister and his colleagues how differently things look when you are in Opposition to what they do when you are in office. I would point out to the Minister that even a deficit of £23,000,000 in Opposition is quite a different thing from a deficit of £90,000,000 in office, and I suggest that that is a change of attitude which the Minister has made since 1931. I could bring up other instances, but I will not do so. The Minister should be the first to sympathise with the right hon. Member for Wakefield.
As I have said, we shall support the Bill because we think it is a useful Measure, although very restricted in its scope. I do not believe that any Measure which contributes to the improvement of agricultural housing should be despised, and it certainly should not be rejected. The condition of houses in rural areas is deplorable. There are something like 46,000 houses included in the slum clearance schemes, but comparatively few houses have been replaced by local authorities in comparison with that large figure. The need for new houses apart, from slum clearance and replacement is still very great, and there is the further fact, which is often forgotten, that when you are dealing with rural areas you must remember that the population has declined by 17 per cent. in the last 10 years. I do not know how long the drift from the countryside to the towns is to be allowed to continue unchecked, but suppose that there should be a return to the countryside, suppose that the agricultural policy of the Government will at last be successful—I think it is very unlikely —what is going to happen? The Government might realise, as I hope they will, that food storage is not going to be adequate for this country in a war emergency; they will have to turn their mind to a policy of greater food production. If they do that on a large scale you will get


a return of the population to the countryside, and, if so, the position of rural housing will be chaotic. I am very grateful to the Minister of Health, not particularly for this Bill, because I do not think it does so much, but for the new subsidy to rural houses, and I hope that by this subsidy and this Bill, into which, in the words of the right hon. Member for Wakefield, I hope the Minister will put vim and energy, and vigour and drive, we shall be able to have not only new houses but better houses than we have at present.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. John Rathbone: When the Minister of Health was in Newquay he hinted at the possibility of something being done for rural housing, and I can assure him that there will be many rural workers who will be grateful to him and to the Government for the comprehensive way in which this question of rural housing has been tackled, not only from the point of view of new construction but also from the point of view of the reconstruction of existing houses. Town dwellers going on their excursions, as they can do now in greater and greater numbers through the countryside, are apt when they pass a country cottage to say, "Look at that picturesque cottage with its small windows and the roses growing round the door." They never stop to think what there is behind. The Government speak with justifiable pride of their campaign for slum clearance and the prevention of overcrowding. In the countryside one hears a great deal of what is being done in the town.
I want to deal with the question from a rather different point of view from that of the hon. Lady who has just spoken, that is to say with the flow of population from the countryside into towns. The younger generation treats what used to be regarded as conveniences, as necessities to-day. They will not stand for bad housing conditions. They will not stand having to go 100 or 150 yards to fetch water; and the reaction to all that is being done in the towns is to make them discontented all the more with country life. What makes it an even greater tragedy is that it is the more ambitious, the more intelligent, rural workers who are the first to get discontented with rural life and seek better

houses, better wages and better conditions in the towns. In these days the type of agricultural worker which is most needed is not the old hayseed type, the general labourer, but the agricultural worker who is a skilled labourer, with intelligence and with a certain amount of mechanical knowledge to deal with tractors and all the machinery which goes with agriculture to-day. It is thus the cream of agricultural labour which is being lost, largely through bad housing conditions and low wages, although that is being seen to and does not concern us in this Bill to-day. Agriculture cannot flourish with a residue of inferior labour.
What then is to be done? First of all there is new construction, which is being provided for in the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act. I do not want to deal with that point this afternoon. Many hon. Members recently have been asked to take an interest in an organisation known as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I am sure everyone who takes an interest in that organisation will be grateful for this Bill, because there must be thousands of cottages throughout the countryside which are structurally sound, but which inside have cooking-stoves which are broken and obsolete, which have no sink—that does not make for cleanliness—which have no larder—which does not make for economy—and which, perhaps, have no water supply inside—which, again, does not make for cleanliness—and which have closets which, to say the least, are dilapidated, extremely unhygienic and in many instances in most inconvenient places. That does not make for a fitter nation for which we are all striving. All this can be dealt with under the Bill, without necessarily spoiling the exterior. A tremendous amount of reconstruction can be done inside. The size of the rooms can be changed and still leave the frontage and the general appearance of a very picturesque and perhaps historic row of cottages. Furthermore, when you are dealing with overcrowding, rooms can be added at the back without changing the nature of the buildings at all, and at the same time solve the problem.
But there are two dangers in the Bill. The first has already been mentioned—the danger of slipshod work, work not being properly carried out, thereby endangering the whole scheme by bringing


it into disrepute. The second danger is ignorance of its provisions, with the result that not enough action will be taken. We have been given figures which show that almost twice as much has been done in Scotland as in England and Wales, and I cannot believe that there are twice as many cottages needing reconstruction in Scotland than in the whole of England and Wales. The expiring Act is to be extended until 1942, and a question I want to ask is, what is going to be the effect of this extension on the number of applications? The Minister of Health has said that just recently there has been an enormous increase in the number of applications, and he put it down to the extra publicity that has been given to the valuable ways in which the Act can be used. I would like to know whether in this publicity the fact was mentioned that the old Act was about to expire, and whether it was also mentioned that it was to be extended. In other words, was this rush of applications due to the fact that there was not very much time left?
From that point of view I should regret that the Act is being extended, because it may mean that some applications will be put off to a future date, when it is known that the scheme is to be extended to 1942. In that case the reconstruction of rural houses will not go ahead fast enough to stop the drift of the country population into the towns. I should like too, to ask a little more about the nature of the publicity which is being given to schemes of reconstruction. Is publicity simply being given to the fact that various ways are available, or are the specific advantages stated? I should like to ask particularly whether attention is drawn to the fact that one can undertake work for two or more cottages under the provisions of Section 2 (2) of the original Act of 1926. It provides that:
 No assistance under this Act shall be given—

(a) where the value of the dwelling after the completion of the proposed works, as estimated by the local authority, exceeds four hundred pounds: Provided that in arriving at the value of any dwelling any carving or panelling shall not be taken into account; or
(b) where the estimated cost of the works to be executed in respect of the dwelling is less than fifty pounds."
That provision can be got round where the proposed works will constitute an improvement to two or more dwellings; in

other words, in the most-needed cases where it would be possible to supply perhaps a row of several cottages with water and drainage which, after all, are two of the main essentials to-day. I wish to ask whether specific attention is being drawn to that sort of Clause, which is apt to be overlooked simply because the main provision has reference to the estimated cost of the work being not less than £50. I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, and if there is anything which I would add to what I have already said to hon. Members above the Gangway, it is that this Bill should be read parallel with the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, which was recently before the House. It is not as if this were the only thing that was being done for rural housing; it is not as if new houses were not going to be built. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to give the fullest possible support to the Bill, and if possible, to give it a Second Reading without a Division.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin: I feel sure that those hon. Members who represent rural areas will welcome this opportunity to discuss the Bill. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that the working of the Act up to now has been entirely unsatisfactory. Will the Minister say whether or not, if the working of the Bill were put into the hands of the district councils, it would, in his opinion, increase the number of houses for which applications would be made? Last Saturday I was talking to a man who has had a great deal of experience of work on a rural district council, and he expressed the opinion that it would be far better, in West Wales, if the working of the Act were placed in the hands of the rural district councils. I think that, properly administered, the Bill could do something, although very little, to improve the conditions of rural housing. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield that it would have been far better for rural housing and rural conditions generally if, instead of this patchwork, there were new houses built. I know that the Minister will not forget that, linked up with this problem, is the problem of the revival of agriculture. It is no good having houses in rural areas unless there are people to live in them, but equally it is hopeless at the present time to think of stopping the drift from


the countryside to the towns unless there are in the rural areas decent houses in which the people can live.

Mr. Quibell: And decent wages.

Mr. Hopkin: And decent wages as well. I was interested to find that in the county which I represent, there were 170 applications, and that 59 of them were successful, involving a sum of £4,604. In the next county, Pembrokeshire, there were 591 applications, of which 479 were successful, involving a sum of £22,615. I have been told that the reason for the large number of successful applications in that county is that the big landowners have taken advantage of the Act, have made applications, and have been assisted to the extent of £22,000. It seems to me to be extraordinary that in the one county that there should have been that very large sum of money expended and that in the next county there should have been granted a sum of only £4,604. I have made it my business to try to discover the reason for which very few applications were made in the county which I represent. There were 59 successful applications in 12 years, which means that about five houses were restored in each year.
I am told that the greatest difficulty which the Carnarvonshire County Council meets is that they do not know whether or not they are entitled to give a grant to a smallholder. I respectfully ask the Minister to give an answer, either "Yes" or "No," to the question whether a smallholder is entitled to this grant. I have seen a letter which the county council sent to the Ministry, and the answer which they received was that it was at their discretion. I think that answer is wholly unsatisfactory, for it is no guide to the county council, who want to know whether, in principle, a smallholder is or is not within the Act. As the Minister knows, a smallholding is defined as being a cottage having attached to it land from one acre to 50 acres. There arises for the county council the difficulty that if help can be given to a smallholder having 50 acres, why can it not be given to a small farmer having 60 acres? I understand that there is also very great difficulty in making the grant in cases where there are mortgages. It is often extremely difficult to get the mortgagee to join in, for join in he must, because, of

course, his security is altered. The rent is fixed for over 20 years, and I understand that, particularly in West Wales, that is a very serious difficulty. I notice that under Clause 3 a man who has paid back half his grant is given the advantage of paying back the whole of the amount in a lump sum, so that should he need to sell his house, he would have the opportunity of doing so. I ask the Minister to explain Clause 7 to the House.
I am able to give the Minister an example of how the Act has been working, and why it is that it has been such a failure. Last Sunday, in a little village called Llansaint, I saw a row of three cottages. I should mention that at one time the three cottages were equally dilapidated. Some time ago the owner of one of the end cottages applied to the county council for a grant, and obtained it, and as a result that cottage is now well built and constructed, has good rooms and is a comfortable home. The owner of the cottage at the other end applied to the county council for a similar grant for the purpose of doing the same thing as his neighbour had done. First of all, he sent his plans to the rural district council concerned, and the plans were passed; but when the plans were sent to the county council along with an application, the application was refused. I understand that another report had been received to the effect that the house would not be suitable. His application was similar in every way to that of his neighbour, but it was refused. In my submission, it is things such as that which have made the working of the Act such a failure. I entirely agree with the contention of my right hon. Friend that it would help local authorities greatly if the Minister were to send out regulations with the Act, and such publicity as he proposes to make, in order to stir the county councils and local authorities which at present do not attempt to make the Act a success.

5.41 p.m.

Sir Malcolm Barclay-Harvey: There has been an interesting Debate on this Bill, which I welcome as being a distinct advance on previous Bills of the same sort which the House has had before it on various occasions. I do not propose to enter into a discussion as to whether


or not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) is entirely consistent in his beliefs, but I am glad that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the Bill, because, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) said, it would be a very much better Bill if we could achieve unanimity, and thereby get more work done under it. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield that I did not realise before that I had anything for which I should be grateful to him, but, speaking as a Scotsman, it appears that we in Scotland may be grateful to him for his support in getting a Bill through under the Labour Government and thereby allowing us to recondition a large number of existing houses, because, as has been said in the Debate, Scotland has made very good use of the Bill, as I hope will continue to be the case.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) is smiling, and I have no doubt that he is thinking of the report of the Alexander Committee, which contained some very unfavourable comments on the way in which the money has been spent. All I will say on that is that, as far as my experience goes, I have seen a good deal of good work done in Scotland under the Act. After all, the Alexander Committee dealt with three parishes in Scotland, and although they were no doubt as representative as it is possible for any three parishes to be, they did not form a very large proportion of the parishes in Scotland. If they had considered some other parts, particularly Aberdeenshire, they might have found a very much more satisfactory state of affairs.
Reference has been made to the fact that the standard of building is not high enough. In Aberdeenshire, a great point is made of the standard of building, and I know that plans have been turned down because they have not conformed with the local by-laws. I should be glad to see that practice made universal. If the Act is to be used in the way in which we all want it to be used, to improve the housing conditions of farm servants in Scotland and England, then at least it is necessary to make certain that when the houses are built, they will be of the type that is wanted. The hon. Lady the

Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) said that farm servants now look with some jealousy on the people who live in towns and who are given better houses than they are. I have said for some time that people who live on the land should get just as good housing accommodation as people who live in the towns. If this Bill will do anything to achieve that object, then on that ground alone it will receive my support.
I am very glad to see the new provisions to deal with overcrowding, but there are one or two respects in which the Bill might have improved the previous Measure. In the first place, I think the sum of £400 might have been increased, at any rate, to £500. Not being a lawyer, I am not clear as to the exact meaning of the terms of the original Act which refer to the value of a house not being in excess of £400. It may be that a house which has cost more than £400 to recondition has an actual value to the owner of less than £400. If it is the intention that it should be a question of value and not of actual cost, that should be made more plain. I know that in some cases applications have been turned down because the cost would be over £400. In one case the plans were submitted unofficially to the county clerk and the owner was told that they did not conform to the county council's standard, and therefore would not be passed. Fresh plans were submitted under which reconditioning would have cost rather more than £500 and the application was then rejected on the ground that the cost would be in excess of £400, or that the house would be of a greater value than £400. That seems to be a wrong way of setting about the matter.
We are very badly in need of more rural houses and decent rural houses in Scotland. There has been a set-back in Scottish housing, for a great many reasons, such as shortage of labour and materials, and surely what we want to do by this Measure is to encourage people to recondition any houses which are capable of being reconditioned. There are many houses which could be reconditioned though at considerable expense. The walls are good enough to enable a start to be made and houses of that sort ought to qualify for assistance under this Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will look into this point and see whether it cannot


be met. There is another point which affects Scotland particularly. We were considering not long ago a Bill dealing with the building of new houses in rural areas in Scotland, and it was provided in that Bill that the grants of the local authorities should be seven-eighths of their expenditure in the Highland counties and three-fourths of their expenditure in the Lowland counties. In this Bill the figures are three-quarters in the Highland counties and one-half in the Lowland counties. There are a great many Lowland counties which are by no means rich, and one reason why the previous Act has not been used more in some of the smaller counties is because the local authorities feel that it is putting too heavy a burden upon them. If we are to get the full benefit of this Measure, we ought to lighten the burden on some of the poorer local authorities on whom the pressure is becoming serious. These people are anxious to use the provisions of the Act, but with one burden after another being put upon them—burdens which we are all willing to bear as far as we can—they are beginning to feel that the pressure is more than they can stand.
I am afraid there is not much hope of any amendment being made in the present Bill, but I hope that the Government may, even at the last hour, find it possible to meet this point. If it is logical to give seven-eighths in the Highland counties and three-fourths in the Lowland counties for new housing, surely it is equally logical to observe the same proportions in regard to reconditioning. When it is not possible to build new houses in sufficient numbers, for reasons which we know to exist, we ought to do all we can to encourage the reconditioning of existing houses. Reference has been made to the decline of the rural population. I am certain that one of the main causes of that decline, and one of the reasons why it is so difficult to get good farm servants in Scotland, is the deplorable condition of rural housing. I believe that this Bill by continuing the previous Act, will do something to meet that case Because I believe that, I shall do all I can to make it a success, and if it were put to a vote I should vote for it, but I am happy to learn that that will not be necessary.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: Personally, I am sorry that there is not to be a vote upon the

Bill, because I would like to vote against it. I have listened to every speech in this Debate, and I have had some experience in the working of the previous Act, and I have never been able to find any good in it. It began from a wrong angle, and every speech to-day has emphasised the fact that we have all along been dealing with this matter from the wrong angle. The Minister of Health twitted my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and suggested that no cricketer to-day had bowled more "no balls" than my right hon. Friend had bowled—politically speaking. I thought, when the right lion. Gentleman was speaking, that it was a good thing that he had been kept on bowling for his side, because he pointed out the defects in this Measure and its predecessors. After so many years' experience, it seems to me that the time has arrived when we ought to discount and discourage attempts to meet this problem in this very inadequate manner.
We talk about housing the rural worker as if a certain type of house was good enough for the rural worker just because he is a rural worker. I object, in the first place, to the Title of the Bill. Why describe housing as being for rural workers? I know the answer will be that it is in order to safeguard the rural worker himself, because he is engaged in a certain occupation, and living under certain conditions in the country. But the standard of house ought to be the same whether it is in the country or in the town. I go further and suggest that a man in the country is entitled to a better house and more amenities than a man living in the town. What was the object of the original Measure and what is the object of continuing it by this Bill? It is to make grants to landowners in order that they can recondition their property. I know that certain conditions are laid down and that handsome grants are made on those conditions. The Minister suggested that one reason why there had been what was termed a "fillip" in the utilisation of the Measure, was the advertising by his Department, which had brought it to the notice of the landlords. I suggest that a different method of advertising has been responsible for this fillip, namely, the slum clearance schemes in adjacent towns under which no compensation has been paid. What has taken place in many rural districts is that


houses which ought to have been condemned and pulled down have been reconditioned under the previous Act in order that they should remain assets to the individual owners. I was amazed to hear the Minister's suggestion that we should attempt to retain many of these cottages because of their special charm and agricultural merit.

Sir K. Wood: No—architectural merit.

Mr. Tomlinson: It was a slip then. I was so much interested in the case of these country cottages and the uses to which they have been put, that I did not notice that the Minister had made a slip.

Sir K. Wood: I did not make the slip.

Mr. Tomlinson: What architectural merit they have passes me by. An hon. Member who spoke earlier referred to the historical value of some cottages, and how important it was that they should be retained. It may be in the interests of historians to retain them, and if they were being restored in order that historians might live in them, I would not mind, but I object to restoring them in order that agricultural labourers should be compelled to live in them. I was also surprised at the Minister's suggestion that under this new Measure there would be powers whereby, if a house was not kept fit, the grant could be withdrawn and whatever had been paid would have to be repaid. It seems a strange proposal coming from the Minister of Health, that we should have to depend upon the power of taking back money that has been granted. Has not the Minister already power to compel a landlord to keep his property fit for habitation? I know that the county councils have been reluctant to act and that we have not a sufficient number of sanitary inspectors, but it seems strange that we should have to offer a bribe to the landlord in order that a house may be kept fit.
Two or three alterations are proposed in this Bill to which I take strong exception. First, it is proposed that, for the purpose of meeting conditions of overcrowding, additions can be made to houses and they can qualify for grant even though something had previously been spent upon them for reconditioning. If a house has been planned in a certain way and has

fallen into such a state as to require reconditioning, and if, having been reconditioned and having already qualified for grant, it is to qualify for a further grant in order that it may be used to house more people, it seems to me that we are in danger of creating a situation of which advantage will be taken by the landlords. What are the conditions under which the money is to be granted? There is nothing about that in the Bill, and no standard is laid down in the Bill. Is the standard which applies to overcrowding under the last Housing Act to be adopted in respect of alterations in the countryside? If so, I have no objection, but I know something of the houses which have been suggested for reconditioning in Lancashire and I cannot think of one in which it would be possible to meet the requirements laid down in the last Act as regards overcrowding. I would like to know whether those conditions are to apply or not?
Then the suggestion is made that release from the conditions should be obtainable in the event of a landlord wanting, so to speak, to buy back his freedom before the expiration of the 20 years. That is something which ought not to happen. I know it is suggested that this grant covers a period of 20 years after the House has been altered or reconditioned and that in some cases after 10 years have passed the conditions from which the owner is seeking relief would best be met by the paying back of one-half of the subsidy or grant. In the first place, when the landlord receives the grant he receives it upon property which otherwise would not be in a fit state for habitation. Therefore, you have made an uneconomic unit into an economic unit. You have made something of value which was of no value, or would shortly become of no value without this assistance. The State and the local authorities have found the wherewithal to do that. I contend that the conditions under which that money has been obtained should remain in operation to the end of the time, irrespective of the position of the individual who has accepted the grant. I can foresee a number of conditions arising under which it will be a good speculation for a man to pay back the grant, to buy his freedom from the conditions under which it has been obtained.
During the past few weeks we have been discussing in this House the question of air-raid precautions, and I know


something of what might take place in the event of an emergency in this country. I know the safest places from the standpoint of air-raid shelters, and I know the places which will be best suited to meet the convenience of the people who can afford them; and when 10 years of this grant have run, I can imagine a number of country cottages that have been reconditioned being used for the purpose of housing people who want to escape from populous areas during air raids. It may seem a far cry to-day, but I suggest that in certain eventualities these houses would be available. They may not be fit for agricultural labourers to live in to-day, but they would make very good places for people who value their lives to flee to when trouble arises in populous areas, and I want to prevent not only that, but an individual from being in a position, during the running of this grant, to change the conditions under which a house has been let. I want us at any rate to control the conditions under which a house shall be let after the money has been paid.
Another question that I would like to ask is whether or not all these houses stand by themselves. I do not mean in the sense that they are built singly, but where a group of three or four houses is built, am I to understand that it will be possible under the Bill for each habitation, not for each block or each scheme of improvements, to get a grant of, say, £100, without a portion of it being paid by the individual? If so, I want again to suggest that the landlord who is in the best position is the one who owns the houses which can be reconditioned and which are grouped together; he is receiving an unfair advantage under the Bill as compared with the individual who owns a single house. Three houses can be reconditioned, and if each house gets £100, it is a much simpler proposition for him to recondition three houses standing together than it is for the one individual to recondition the one house. Three times £99, I suggest, is a matter of £297, if the lessons that I learned at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week are anything to go by, and a grant of £297 for three houses seems to me to be very generous. I am not surprised at that, because generosity to the landlords has been one of the characteristic features of the Government since I came into this House some three months ago.
Again, in opposing this Bill and its principle, I want to appeal for something better for the rural workers. The houses that we are thinking about mostly under this Bill would, it seems to me, be best wiped out and a new beginning made. I would much rather spend more money on building new houses of a decent type than on providing landlords with money to save what we have already. If it is the countryside that you are concerned about, beautify those houses, stick flagpoles on them, do what you want with them, but do not ask people to live in them. That is the tragedy of the countryside at the present time, and I, for one, object to this Measure because it is treating the people in the countryside as entitled to something less than the best in which to eke out their existence.
An hon. Member who spoke just now spoke of the individuals who were fleeing from the countryside, and he said that the men whom we wanted to get were the men with brains. The agricultural labourer needs to be a man with brains. I was an agricultural labourer 20 years ago, before the coming of the tractor, when the tractor was not required. There have never been any hayseeds in the countryside. The agricultural labourer has never received his due, either in houses, in wages, or in anything else, and it has not been because of lack of brains. His knowledge of the turning of the plough and of the way in which to cultivate the ground without the implements in modern use deserves a great deal more respect from people who speak about the value of the countryside than it has received in this Debate to-day, and in his defence, at any rate, I wanted to say that before I sat down.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. De Chair: I listened with some astonishment to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), who has just sat down, when he said, with a sweep of his hands, "Architecturally they pass me by," when referring to the repairing of cottages in the English countryside. I wondered whether I was sitting in the English House of Commons and whether the heritage of England, with all its beauty, one of the most remarkable things in the world, had descended into the hands of people who had absolutely no conception of beauty whatever. I was reminded of the phrase of a dictator of a


foreign Power which shall be nameless, when he said, recently, "I hate the picturesque." I think it is very difficult to divorce this question of rural housing from the question of the picturesque, and I would like to put it to hon. Members opposite, Do they seriously want to wipe out all the old, picturesque, interesting houses and to replace them simply by mechanical rows of four-square houses blotted against the countryside? If they want to do that, it seems to me that they are trying to secure the world and to lose their own soul. We can have efficient people on the land, and we want to see them in comfortable homes, but their comfortable homes might better be good, solidly built, comfortable homes that will last 300 years than many of the modern council houses that will last possibly 10, 20, or 30 years at the outside.
There are houses standing in English villages to-day which have been there for 400 years, but I very much question whether any of the houses built under subsidies, even from the present Government, will last 400 years. And there are many houses to-day which, when restored, will last another 400 years. I agree as heartily as anyone who has spoken in this Debate in regard to the housing conditions which exist in the countryside to-day. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) described them as deplorable, and I agree with her entirely. Slums have existed unnoticed in the countryside which would have been dealt with in big cities, where they would have been more under the eye of the authorities, and I cannot help thinking that people are often deluded by the external appearance of a picturesque house into thinking how charming it is, without bothering to peer inside and find out how really deplorable its condition is. We are entirely agreed upon that point, but it is an entirely different matter to go another step and to say, "All right, pull it down," when it may simply be because the gutters have been blocked up with leaves that the damp is rotting through the walls, or because some neglect of a single tile has allowed water to pour through the roof. Very often the expenditure of a little money may put an old cottage into good repair where hon. Members opposite would apparently prefer the expenditure of some hundreds of pounds in order to wipe it out and

build an entirely new one in its place. That surely is the Oriental method of proceeding from point to point by three sides of a square. Frequently it is the quickest, easiest, and cheapest method to repair an old house.
I, for one, unhesitatingly support my right hon. Friend in having brought forward this Bill. I support it a great deal more wholeheartedly than the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) apparently supported a similar Bill in 1931. He said that he did it with great reluctance, yet that he did it wholeheartedly, and I could not quite follow the logic of that reasoning. This kind of reluctant wholeheartedness was a new method of procedure to me. Much has been said in this Debate about the drift of agricultural labour from the land, and I agree with what has been said. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey asked whether anything was to be done to check this drift from the land. The first thing which is going to check it will be the proper use of this Act. If all the cottages in rural areas in which agricultural labourers are living to-day are put into a proper state of repair, that will do more than very many things to check the drift of agricultural workers from the land.
I will come to the point raised by my right hon. Friend when he said that he was not satisfied merely with giving publicity to this grant and with exhorting the local councils to use it, but that he was going to have a survey made, I understood, of the present condition of rural cottages. I should like to ask for a little more information on that point. How is this survey to take place? Is it to be simply a casual perambulation of Ministry of Health inspectors, or is it to be a really sound, vigorous drive right through the countryside, so that no cottage will be overlooked? I feel that the whole rural housing position needs drastic overhauling, and if my right hon. Friend could assure us that no cottage was to escape scrutiny, I should feel very much easier in my mind. With regard to the number of cottages that have been restored under the Act, it is perhaps interesting to notice that there have been three cottages built in rural areas with grants from the Government for every one cottage that has been restored, so that I do not think hon. Members opposite need feel too worried about it. They are getting three


brand new modern houses for every old one that is being preserved, so that I do not think they need feel that the proportion of the latter is too great.
I only wish that all the rural houses of the old type could be preserved, but I realise that many of them are too far gone and have to be condemned. That is quite right, but that is a far cry from sweeping all the old cottages away, and I sincerely hope that the practice of simply ignoring the use of the Act which is very common among councils, will drop into disuse. It is true that the Act is very unpopular in many areas. I remember discussing the question with the chairman of a rural district council, to whom I said, "I cannot understand why you keep on refusing applicants these grants, when it is simply a matter of getting the best possible housing conditions for the rural workers, which is presumably your aim." He replied, "This is an unpopular Act. It puts money into the pockets of the landlords." I tried to reason with him and to point out that the landlord does not benefit financially, because for 20 years the rent is restricted to 4 per cent. on the money which he contributes to the cost of repairs, but he did not see it that way, and he said to me, "If I were you, I should not go on advocating the Act, because it is unpopular." I said, "I am glad that not everybody is deterred simply because an Act is unpopular."
I am glad for that reason that the party opposite have decided not to oppose the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons to-day. Perhaps that will have the effect of making some of their supporters in the country give the working of the Act in the future a little more whole-hearted support than they have given it in the past. I cannot understand the attitude of people who regard old houses as second-hand houses. They regard houses as they do motor-cars which wear out in a few years; and they consider that new houses are infinitely better than the old. I should say that houses are much more like teeth, and I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield that it is far better to stop a tooth than to have a new one. If he carried that into the realm of rural housing the countryside would be preserved a little better. We are passing through an age of mass production in

which we boast of turning things out in similar types by the thousand. We saw posters, for which I think the Minister was responsible, which said, "A thousand houses a day." We ought to stop and ask what kind of houses we are getting, and what the "thousand houses a day" will look like in a few years' time. The more we can do to preserve what beauty we have, the better service we shall do the country as a whole. I whole-heartedly support this Bill.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I wish I could get as interested in this Bill as the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair). There are many parts of England which are beautiful. There are many parts which are not beautiful, and which are, indeed, ugly. The impression created upon my mind by the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that the beautiful cottages of England are not so beautiful as to induce the landlords of England not to neglect them, as they have done for years. I have never heard the Minister of Health so unconvincing as he was in opening this Debate to-day. I have listened to him on many occasions and I have often felt a tremendous amount of admiration for the great work he is trying to do. To-day, however, I could not but feel that his heart and mind were not in the task of presenting this Bill. He must have felt, I think, that this was a bad piece of patchwork in the housing policy of this country, and that he would really like to see demolished the majority of the rural cottages in which agricultural labourers have to reside. It may be true that there are a few of these old houses which can be renovated. They have gathered round them a great amount of local history and a good deal of sentiment, but I have seen a large part of this country and I am satisfied that the only sensible thing to do with the great majority of these cottages is to demolish them.
I represent in this House a constituency in which there is one of the largest rural district councils in the country. This council has made a great contribution to housing, a contribution second to none, I should think, of any rural district council in the land, and I am proud of the work it has done. In every portion of its district this council has been busy demolishing old houses, many of which have housed agricultural labourers, but


I do not know of one cottage in that area where this progressive council has taken the view that it should renovate under either the 1926 Act or the 1931 Act. It has taken the view—rightly, I think—that the proper thing to do with these dilapidated, insanitary houses, houses without adequate light and water supply, was to demolish them and to build new houses. In the Minister's depressing presentation of his case to-day there was not a word about the agricultural labourer. I have two pictures in my mind. Last year when I was touring the country I met a good friend of mine who runs a progressive dairy farm. He showed me the manner in which he housed his cattle; there was running water supply and all the modern equipment and conveniences. I thought that the job was a very good one and I was glad to see milk being produced in circumstances of that kind. After I had looked at the dairy farm I asked the farmer whether I might look at 'the cottage of the agricultural labourer who was in charge of the cattle. He was good enough to show me, and I am bound to confess than the cattle were housed 10 times better than the agricultural labourer. Yet the Minister did not say a word with regard to the agricultural labourer. We cannot look with satisfaction upon the conditions in which many of our agricultural labourers live.
One hon. Member said that if the owner of an agricultural cottage is too poor to put it into a habitable condition, he did not disagree with the provisions of this Bill which permit a grant of public money to be made to the owner. I do not disagree with that. If the owner is in such a poor financial position that he cannot put the house into a habitable condition in which the agricultural labourer can live in decency and comfort, I do not object to the Clause in the Bill which permits the local authority to purchase the house at a fair value and to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill in order to put it in a fit condition. I take the view on the other hand, that if a wealthy landowner or farmer fails to put a house into a habitable condition, he should be subjected to a means test before any public money is spent on the house. Not only is there no means test in such a case, but the Minister went out of his way to say that if the owner of an agricultural cottage had already received one grant

and found that it was not sufficient, he was entitled to receive a second grant. It is wrong to use public money in that way.
I agree that we have to do something to check to flow of agricultural labour from the countryside to the towns. The policy of this Government does everything possible for the people who control agriculture, but it cannot give a reasonable wage to the agricultural labourer. The Government not only deny him a reasonable wage, but this Bill proves that they are denying him proper shelter. We have denied him the common amenities of ordinary life. He lives in outlandish places. How can we expect the agricultural labourer, badly fed, badly housed, badly clothed, to be content with such a life? After all, the farm worker is one of the most wonderful types of men in this country. I take the view that the farm labourer is a highly technical man, a highly scientific man, and he is responsible for the agriculture of this country, and yet we ask him to remain the most shockingly treated of British working men. Personally I object to money being handed over to the landlord class without some guarantee that the agricultural labourer will be properly housed; but if this Bill will accomplish that end then, for whatever it will do to improve conditions, I shall give it my support.

6.32 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) into his complaint that the Minister did not speak about the agricultural labourer himself, because the whole Bill is instinct with the housing of the agricultural labourer. It is with the welfare of the agricultural labourer that the Bill deals. What is of importance is that the hon. Member should suggest that the agricultural labourer is so poorly paid that the Government ought to raise his wages. Surely he knows quite well that the rate of agricultural wages is not a matter in the hands of the Government, but that it is settled by local committees, who are infinitely better fitted than any Whitehall Department to decide what is the proper wage.

Mr. Dunn: Is it not true that less than 12 months ago this House denied to agricultural labourers the right to a minimum wage of £2 a week?

Sir F. Fremantle: I do not think the Chair would allow me to follow up that point. Who is to pay the agricultural labourer more? Is it to be the farmer? As everyone knows, farmers, taken as a whole, cannot make both ends meet; all over the country they are getting deeper and deeper into debt. Nor can it he the landlords. For the most part landlords are giving up the countryside, because they cannot make both ends meet, and nobody suggests that they can. Is it, then, to be the Government? Presumably that is the Socialist policy, that the Government should take over control of the whole of the land and pay the labourers. I will not deal further with that point.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and other critics opposite that this Bill carries us only a short step in dealing with the rural housing problem, but do not let us belittle it for that reason, because what is proposed in this Bill means everything to the tenants of the houses concerned. To the tenant of a bad house in the country it means everything that his house should be made habitable and improved, perhaps, to meet the needs of an expanding family. Those people do not want to be turned out of their houses. The argument 44 the right hon. Member for Wakefield and others has been, roughly, that instead of reconditioning these old houses we should build new ones, but those who know the countryside know that in most cases it is not a question of the labourers getting the one or the other, because if this Bill is not passed the existing houses, unless they are so bad that they must be condemned by the local authority, will continue to be all that are available. The amount of building done by rural authorities is, in most cases, very limited. It is true that under an Act passed this Session further opportunities are given, accompanied by a subsidy, for building houses in rural areas, and it is hoped that a great deal more will be done in that respect, but we know that the supply of building labour in the villages is limited.
The housing machinery of rural district councils is really rusting, and there is neither rapid building nor extensive building, but according to the logic of hon. Members opposite we still ought not to pass such Measures as this, and the inferior houses, if they are at all habitable, ought to be allowed to remain. [Interruption.] That is what it comes

to. I agree that these reconditioning Measures are limited in their application, and that we ought to go ahead with new housing in the countryside, but meanwhile we should get other people to help, so far as they will, in improving the houses already in existence. I will give two instances which are within my knowledge, in a county which, to our shame, has done very little to make use of housing legislation. In one case there was a row of four houses on a farm. They had been built according to the best traditions of about 60 years ago, but they had not a damp-course arid had only two rooms up and two rooms down, and the out-sheds were inadequate. What was done there was just what it is possible to do under this legislation. The landlord converted those four cottages into two cottages; it was the best way of providing improved housing accommodation, and perhaps it was an excessive provision. Unfortunately, that was done just before the Act of 1926 came into force. Consequently the landlord did not get the benefit of that legislation, and he lost on the transaction, because he got the rental for only two cottages instead of four, and he decided that he could not afford to go on in that way. If this legislation had been in force he would have had some recompense for the loss of income and for the capital outlay to which he had been put, although he would not have received anything like what it had cost him.
The other instance concerned an old laundry house attached to a big house. The laundry house was no longer wanted, and with the grants for loans given under this legislation. it was made into two good cottages, which are the equal of any built by any municipality. They were passed by the local authority. Real emphasis ought to be laid on the point that the consent of the local authority has to be obtained, and the authority, in deciding whether to give a grant or not, can make conditions. It can say that the rental is not to be too high, not above 3s. or 3s. 6d., and make other terms and conditions. We of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee refer in our report to the power given to owners to raise rentals up to the level of prevailing rents, but we also refer in paragraph 29 to the fact that where the rental was above the prevailing agricultural rent local authorities had no power


to make conditions, and there is nothing about any power to insist on a reduction of the rent. That point is now being met, because local authorities have powers to make conditions.
A point which I would ask the Minister to deal with in his reply, because it puzzled us on the committee, is referred to in paragraph 30 of the report. It is pointed out there that these Acts provide no remedy in the case of houses which are already fully mortgaged, belonging, probably, to a small owner, where the mortgagee refuses to extend his mortgage or to agree to the extra conditions laid down before a housing grant will be given. That means that such houses, although they may be suitable for reconditioning, cannot be reconditioned, where there is no way of compelling the mortgagee to agree. I believe that position could be met, but what the committee reported was that none of the witnesses appearing before us had been able to suggest a solution to the difficulty and that we could not make any recommendations. I should like to know whether the Minister has been able to deal with that particular point. I hope that it can be met by the power of the county council, to which the Minister referred, to buy up such property, but I am not clear how that can be done if the mortgagee objects to being paid off. It is possible that in the majority of cases county councils may be able to buy such houses, and that may to some extent meet the difficulty. At the same time I should like to know where it is stated that the county councils have the power to buy up these houses. I cannot find it stated in the Bill, and I imagine, therefore, it is a power conferred by previous legislation. I hope it is a very real power and that it can be used effectively.
There is no question that there is a danger that local authorities who do not understand their responsibilities may give grants, whether under pressure or not, for the reconditioning of houses which are not worth reconditioning. I speak very strongly as an old county medical officer of health. Before so much attention was paid to rural housing it was one of the subjects about which county medical officers were keen, and they have been increasingly keen about it. Incidentally, county medical officers of health and their associations are very much in favour of

these rural housing Acts, and this Bill too, and are very anxious to see them more freely used. The medical officer of health for Devonshire has given us a good account of what has been done in his county, and we should like to see that work spread to other counties, but we have to beware of the danger of repairing—and still more reconditioning—houses which may keep alive bad housing conditions, because if a house has only 10 or 12 years of proper life left to it and it is reconditioned the maintenance of it will be costly, and in such circumstances it might be more economical and better to build new houses. Generally there is that alternative, and, where there is, by all means build new houses rather than recondition those which are approaching their end, but do not let us be blind to the fact that many houses built in the middle of last century are quite capable of being brought up to present standards.
It is the duty of the local authorities to decide this question, when investigating whether a particular house, in the existing conditions of the locality, is a proper one for help of this kind. We come back to this point again and again, that it is the local authority who have to be responsible. It is for that reason that our committee emphasised the fact and reported upon it to the Minister that the difference between counties was most marked because certain local authorities had not made the Acts properly known. Acting on that, the Minister has put forward a considerable programme of publicity which is already taking effect, as he has shown us to-day.
I hope that the protest made by my colleague the hon. Lady who represents Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), regarding gifts to rich landlords, will not prevent us from exercising our vote in favour of this Measure. It is difficult to take any practical line to distinguish the rich landlord from the poor landlord. Are we to have a chartered accountant making a return of the expenses of the landlord and of his estate? If so, hardly a landed estate in this country would not show a loss and therefore that the landlord was not rich. Are we to take account of a landlord's earnings from another point of view? Is he bound to spend his earnings or his savings in keeping up the estate? Obviously he is not necessarily going to do so. Although I sympathise with the


general idea that we do not want to give the grant to rich members of another place, I would point out the safeguard that local authorities are not bound to give a grant. I am certain that Lord Nuffield would never ask for a grant, but if he were to, his application would be turned down by his local authority. If it were not, there would be the very good reason that cottages were going to he reconditioned and they could not condemn them because they wanted to get them reconditioned.
Let us come back to the fact that this grant is made definitely for supplying a need that would otherwise not be supplied and that the local authority are the people who can decide whether that need exists and whether it can be supplied without these grants. If not, the landlord has a right to come forward and ask for the loan or the grant. Nobody can define the difference between a wealthy landlord and a poor landlord. I believe that most of these houses belong not to landlords as commonly understood; in my county it is the retired tradesman who has bought this type of cottage with a view to its being his pension, or as a safeguard for his widow after his death. Neither he nor his widow has more than a very small means for repairing the cottage and none to meet the expenditure of reconditioning, and although they will pay great attention to keeping it up to the mark they cannot afford to put in what would be required to bring it up to modern standards. That is the kind of landlord whom this Measure is designed to help and ought to help, and to whom we should turn our attention in considering the Bill.
A further practical point that I wish to bring forward arises out of the fact that the owners I have described are usually not of very wide education or experience or very much in touch with public life and public forms. They may be reached by the campaign of publicity, and they may be face to face with an appalling big form which they have to fill up but cannot understand. After trying to go through the form, which is often made out in official language, they give it up, and the form gets buried under a heap of papers and forgotten. I therefore suggest that the need for greater simplicity in forms should be impressed upon local authorities. A second point

is that some authorities are very prompt in dealing with correspondence, while others are less prompt, and that there are cases in which applications are delayed week after week and month after month. They may not be dealt with until after the next quarterly meeting of the county council, or perhaps not till the quarterly meeting after that, very little, if any, correspondence taking place meanwhile. Such an experience checks people from applying under these Housing Acts. Attention to these two points should do a good deal to make it easier for people to appreciate the meaning of these Acts.
The real working of the Acts falls back upon the local authorities. That is a point which we are frequently pressing in this House. If we are to make local government ever worthier, keener and more active we must press upon the electorate the necessity for keeping the local authorities up to the mark, giving credit to local authorities who do excellent work and discrediting those who do not. Although this is a small Measure it will be very useful as far as it goes, especially to people whose houses and homes are at stake. I hope that it will be passed unopposed and that it will be properly worked when it is passed into law.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: Many hon. Members have drawn attention in this Debate to the pre-eminent position of the county a part of which I have the honour to represent. I do not suppose there are many counties—I doubt whether there is any in this aspect of public administration—which is so pre-eminently in advance of all the others as is Devon in this matter of assistance to rural housing, and it is appropriate that a representative of that county should say a word of appreciation and of support to the Government for prolonging the existence of an Act which has been of so great an assistance to us. Having thrown that bouquet, I would say a word about the suggestion which the Minister made to account for that preeminence of one county and the apparent failure of others to take advantage of these Acts.

Mr. Loftus: I would point out that East Suffolk led the way for years in applications for assistance of this kind and that it is only recently that Devon has caught up.

Mr. Acland: I have no doubt that there is something in common. In the matter of circularising landlords and others interested, I would give to hon. Members who represent parts of counties which have not made as much use of these Acts as they might have done, the advice that they should determine that the Bill shall be worked after it becomes law. The Minister recently came down to Newquay in North Cornwall and made a speech in which he said that the great drawback about Members of the Opposition Liberal party was that they never took part in public administration. That remark did not bring him as much credit as did other parts of his speech, and I would remind him that the chairman of the committee dealing with this matter is the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) in which constituency the Minister was saying that Members of the Opposition Liberal party never took any part in public administration.

Sir K. Wood: indicated dissent.

Mr. Acland: The Minister must not shake his head, because those were his words as reported in the Press. If there is any doubt in the matter, would the Minister be so kind as to clear it up by asking the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say one sentence, or perhaps a half sentence which is not entirely irrelevant, on that matter?

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I wish to say a few words in favour of this extending Bill because I have had experience of the administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act of 1926, as a member of the Gloucestershire County Council. We were somewhat slow in Gloucestershire in beginning to work the Act, but I am glad to say that we have taken advantage of it increasingly. No doubt, after the improvements brought about by the Bill, we shall make still further use of it. I welcome in particular the check that will be kept upon the condition of the houses for the purpose of seeing that they are maintained fit for people to live in. With regard to the proposal that the contribution can be paid by instalments, I am sure that it will be a great advantage to landowners.
Objection has been raised to the Bill on the ground that it is entirely for the

benefit of landowners, but I challenge the statement. The Bill does what no other Housing Bill does, in that it provides for agricultural labourers or people of similar economic status decent houses at rents they can afford to pay. The fault of a great many Housing Acts, admirable so far as they go, is that a great many people who ought to have houses are unable to pay the rents asked by local authorities. Under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act the rent is definitely restricted for 20 years within an amount that the agricultural labourer can pay. It is said that that has been done at the expense of the standard of accommodation provided, so perhaps I may be allowed briefly to say what test we apply in Gloucestershire in regard to that standard.
The applicant has to submit plans. Those plans go in the first instance to the rural district council and have to be approved by the Council's surveyor. They are then sent to the county council, and the county councillor for the district himself goes and inspects the house, studies the plans, and learns what changes are being proposed. Then, if he recommends that a grant be made, the application goes to the health committee of the county council, who consider the proposed improvements from a health standpoint; and if the application has the approval of the health committee, it then goes to the finance committee, who consider it from a financial point of view, and afterwards to the county council proper for final determination. We were told by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) that plans which had been approved by a rural council for one house were not approved by the county council.

Mr. Hopkin: The plans were not approved afterwards by the county council for a grant.

Mr. Lipson: Yes. Presumably they were not approved because the county council was not satisfied with the standard of accommodation provided. That, I think, meets the objection which has been raised from the other side that this Bill may recondition houses, but when you have reconditioned them the houses are not fit to live in. But I have pointed out that in my own county—and it is confirmed that apparently the same is the practice in Carmarthenshire—the standard has to satisfy the county councilors for


the area, and if their standard is a poor one then I think they must blame the people who elect them. But I think everything goes to prove that the standard is a reasonable one. Therefore I do not think it is fair to criticise this Act on the ground of the standard.
Then objection has been raised because some of the applicants for grants are wealthy people. I think it must be left to the individual to decide, if he is a wealthy man or woman, whether it is quite the right thing to apply for a grant or not. I hope that hon. Members opposite are not going to suggest that there should be one law for the poor and another law for the rich. Under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act the question of the financial position of the applicant does not arise. Therefore it is not right to judge the question from that point of view. I am not going to defend a rich man or woman making application on the ground, mentioned by an hon. Member who spoke just now, that it is not always easy to say whether a man is a rich man or not. I think in a county we usually know who are the rich people and who are not. I would approve the giving of a grant for one reason only, namely that on its merits it is justified, that it is going to provide accommodation which otherwise would not be provided.
May I point out that there is nothing in this Act which justifies the grant of money merely for landlord's repairs? If a grant is to be given, additional accommodation or improved accommodation must be provided. I submit, too, that the local authority is able to get a house at an economic rent comparatively cheaply from its point of view. It is much cheaper for the local authority to make the two-thirds grant up to £100 towards an alteration than to have to build a new house. On that ground also I think the continued operation of these Acts is to be recommended.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen raised the point as to whether a grant should be made to a smallholder. In Gloucestershire we have made grants to smallholders. The only test we have applied is whether a man's income as a smallholder is approximately the same as that of an agricultural labourer. That is the answer to the hon. Member's question, "If you can make a grant to a smallholder with 50 acres, why cannot you

make it to a farmer with 6o acres? The answer is this, that you might be a smallholder with 50 acres and financially be no better off than an agricultural labourer. If you are better off, then you are not entitled to the grant and the county council would not give it; but if you are no better off, your economic status is that of an agricultural labourer, and therefore you are entitled to the grant.
I welcome the extension of this Act with the additional advantages proposed in this Bill. We have been considering to-day a matter of vital importance to the nation, because the preservation of rural England means also the preservation of the rural population of England, and I believe that the future greatness of England depends upon the preservation of our rural stock.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health when he introduced this Measure this afternoon I am sure enjoyed himself thoroughly among his quotations of what somebody said in 1931 and what somebody said in 1926, and I am sure that had we lived in other times he would have re-echoed the famous election war-cry, "What did Mr. Gladstone say in 1886?" He set out to prove that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) held a different opinion on this matter from my late right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Adamson; and indeed the Minister was at some pains to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield held opinions at variance with those of my hon. Friends who sit with me for Scottish constituencies on the Opposition Benches. Let me disabuse his mind upon that point at once. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield holds precisely the same views as are held by 99 per cent. of hon. Members on this side of the House. Like many other steps in life this is a choice between two evils, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield has never disguised his view—and I share it —that it is absolutely foolish and wicked and wrong to provide from the public Treasury for the development of privately-owned property, that if the community is to make contributions to housing then the State should acquire part ownership, to the extent at any rate that it gives grants. If you like, it should take mortgages; but the community ought not to hand over


funds from the public purse to private individuals, and selected individuals at that.
I would draw the attention of the House to one fundamental difference. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) touched upon the fundamental fact that under our housing laws we have given these particular proprietors the right to add 25 per cent. to their annual income on condition that they expend that 25 per cent. upon repairs to the property. No one knows better than the hon. Member that the vast majority of the proprietors of these houses are not expending the 25 per cent. increase of the rent upon repairs. They simply pocket the 25 per cent., and when a number of years have passed without any repairs upon these properties they fall into serious disrepair, and then these proprietors under this class of Measure go to the local authorities and say, "Will you please give us two-thirds of the total capital expenditure that we shall incur upon our property? We will pay the remaining third, and upon that third we shall be entitled to exact interest."

Sir F. Fremantle: But not for repairs.

Mr. Johnston: That is what I am coming to in a moment. I am going to prove that so far as Scotland is concerned—and we have heard a great deal this afternoon about Scotland leading the way, showing the English how to do it—a committee has inquired into this matter and reported unanimously that on the evidence submitted there had been a grave waste of public money. That is the unanimous view of a committee the majority of whose members support the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. It is within my personal knowledge that properties which have fallen into disrepair have received public money for reconstruction, and that reconstruction has 'in reality been repair. They have got money for painting, for wooden windows that have been allowed to rot, and for putting on doors; and when we come to the Committe stage I trust that hon. Members who have spoken so enthusiastically about the Bill this afternoon will support us in the demand that a standard of regulations should be laid down by this House or by the Minister, and that no individual shall get a grant from public funds for reconditioning his property unless the property

comes up to that standard. Surely that is not an unreasonable demand, and I trust that in that we shall have the support of the hon. Member for St. Albans.
The report of this committee, which was a committee inquiring into the subject in Scotland, discloses why many of us would not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I know nothing about the English conditions or about the Welsh conditions, but I do know something about the state of affairs in Scotland. I take one parish the parish of Tarbat in Ross, represented in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions. The committee took three parishes—Tarbat in Ross, Inverarity in Angus, and Jedburgh in the South. Here is what they got at Tarbat in Ross. They examined 223 houses, and of these, 120, or more than half, had no sanitary convenience of any kind whatsoever. The Kaffir kraals in South Africa are more provided with sanitation than the people at Tarbat in Ross, and, if the only chance that these poor people have in this generation of getting sanitary conveniences in their homes—I do not say they will get them—is through an Act like this, I, who enjoy the advantages of sanitary arrangements in my home, cannot vote against that chance of my fellow-countrymen getting sanitary arrangements in theirs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield says the same. He says that, so long as there is an odd chance of doing some good to workers in the rural areas, he would not take the responsibility of voting against this Bill. We are all agreed about that. But where we on this side differ is that we say it is infinitely preferable, if public money is being expended, that the public shall own the property, and we shall take all the steps available to us to induce local authorities to purchase property, or to get mortgages on property, and not, as we say in Scotland, to "grease the fat sow."
Two hon. Members who spoke a short time ago said that this Measure would help only the small property owner, but one thing that irritated any number of people in Scotland was that the wealthiest man in our generation, the late Sir John Ellerman, who, I believe, left about £40,000,000, had the effrontery to go to the county council of Aberdeen—an hon. Member for one of the Aberdeenshire


Divisions supported the Bill this afternoon, but he never told us about the Ellerman estate—and get a cottage reconditioned at the public expense. Not only did that happen in Aberdeenshire, but I believe I am right in saying that down in Berwickshire the great house of Usher, well known in connection with the brewing industry, with properties in Berwick, actually went to the county council of Berwick and got public money for reconditioning their property. As far as I am concerned, on these matters I am for a means test, but at any rate, if I cannot get a means test, I am for a sanitary test, and, if regulations are not going to be propounded clearly by the Government as to a minimum standard for houses for which public money is to be provided, I, for my part, will cheerfully vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
Clause 9 of the Bill says that in certain circumstances public money is going to be given for reconditioning provided that there is abatement of overcrowding. In Section 58 of the Act of 1936, a standard with regard to overcrowding is laid down. Will it be clearly stated here this evening that, as regards the whole of the public money that is to be given under Clause 9 of the Bill to subsidise private landlords in respect of abatement of overcrowding, at least the Government's 1936 housing standard will be followed? Can we have an answer on that point later? We do not want this matter dodged. Is there to be an overcrowding standard as stated in previous Housing Acts under which public money is provided, and a lower standard here? If so, many of us would take the most strenuous objection to any such procedure.
As to the question of waste of public money in Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman, when the Bill of 1931 was going through, said that he did not know of any in England. Does he know of any in England now? I understand he has had no complaints. In Scotland there are any number of complaints. I believe I am right in saying that the procedure, until the beginning of this year, was that a landowner might apply to the county council for a grant, that if the county council approved the work might be proceeded with, and that the Government or the Department of Health in Edinburgh only knew about the matter when the works were completed and a certificate

was sent in by the county clerk, when the Government had to pay.
We want to know whether the regulations are going to be tightened up. We want to ensure that every house, so far as possible, gets a water supply, or no grant. I am not certain that it is possible absolutely to insist upon it in every case; I would not go so far as that, because there are shepherds' cottages away in the hills where it might be absolutely impossible to do it; but we want the most stringent regulations laid down, so that the odd case may not become the average. We want to know if drainage will be supplied before public money is handed out; we want to know if 'there are to be water-closets; we want to know if there is to be light—if the windows are to be of sufficient size. We want to know whether rotten damp houses, streaming with dampness and wet, are simply to be plastered over, or in some cases papered over, and public money applied for? On this matter there is no difference of opinion at all on this side of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield shares the opinion that all of us here hold. We are not going to vote against the Second Reading of this Measure so long as there is a chance of some of our fellow-citizens in the rural areas getting some of the amenities of civilisation, or a chance of them. But it is our duty, as an Opposition, and I trust we shall fulfil it during the Committee stage of the Bill, to take every step in our power to see that the public Treasury is not milked in the future, as it has been in the past, by a selected group of investors in house property.

7.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): In view of the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill which appeared on the Order Paper, I had prepared myself to defend at some length the principles embodied in the Bill, but I think that, since hon. Gentlemen opposite have decided not to vote against the Bill, and in view of its general acceptance, at least so far as the Second Reading is concerned, in every part of the House, I shall be making better use of the time at my disposal if I simply confine myself to replying to the requests for information which have been made in the course of the Debate.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) raised


three matters with regard to which he said he would like some answer. First there was the question of the ability of very rich men to receive these grants; then there was the question of the standard with regard to overcrowding which would apply under Clause 9 of the Bill; and, finally, the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether the regulations under which these reconditioning grants may be received would be tightened up. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) also, I think, raised the first point, about the ability of men with very large fortunes to effect such improvements as are provided for in this Bill without any State assistance. The hon. Lady gave, I think, the example of Lord Nuffield, who has made large sums of money out of motor cars. The right hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned Sir John Ellerman, who made a large fortune out of shipping, and he also mentioned someone who had made very large sums out of beer.
If a man makes several million pounds out of shipping or motor cars or beer, and if he spends a small fraction of his fortune on purchasing an agricultural estate, I have no doubt whatever that he personally is able, not only to do all the improvements that are contemplated under this Bill, but to build a whole lot of new houses, without receiving any money from the State. All I would say is that the money to pay for it does not come out of agriculture. It comes out of shipping, or motor cars, or beer, as the case may be. The only difference is that, instead of the agricultural industry being subsidised by the State, the agricultural industry is being subsidised by beer, or by motor cars, or by shipping. In every case funds are provided from some nonagricultural source of wealth to supplement the economic deficiencies of the agricultural industry.
I suppose that the individuals to whom the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have referred either employ themselves, or get their money from sources which employ, enormous numbers of nonagricultural workers in the manufacture of motor cars or the building of ships or the brewing of beer. Their houses are subsidised by the State under the ordinary Housing Acts, according to the principle which Parliament has laid down, that we give subsidies for housing for low-paid

wage-earners because we wish them to enjoy a higher standard of housing than that which they can normally pay for out of their wages. If you are going to say, in the case of rural houses, that because a man is personally very rich he is not qualified for this grant in respect of that small fraction of his possessions which is in an agricultural district, you are then denying to agriculture advantages which you do not deny to those engaged in urban and manufacturing industries.

Miss Lloyd George: Reconditioning is not subsidised in urban areas. It is only in the case of rural houses that reconditioning is subsidised.

Mr. Wedderburn: I think it is analogous, because a reason for reconditioning is that it is more satisfactory to improve a large and old, well-established house in the country than to pull it clown and build a new one in its place. In the towns the same kind of conditions do not always apply. The next question of the right hon. Gentleman was about the standard of overcrowding under Section 9. Additional grants may be given to houses which have been already reconstructed under the Act to a smaller additional extent, in order to prevent overcrowding. The right hon. Gentleman wanted an assurance that the standard of overcrowding would be that laid down in 1936—I think in Scotland it is 1935. The answer is, Yes, it will be the ordinary overcrowding standard which is identical in both countries.
Let me say a word about regulations. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, the report of the Committee on Rural Housing in Scotland has already been fully discussed more than once in this House—on the Scottish Estimates last Summer and also, I think, in a Debate on the Adjournment. My right hon. Friend and myself have gone into the matter at some length, so I do not think I need go into the whole of the report and our views on it again. It was made plain at the time that we were very grateful to the committee for pointing out that some reconditioned houses were not satisfactory in all respects. We also made it plain last year that we did not accept their inference that the Acts involved a grave waste of public money. If the house is not satisfactory in all respects; if it has, for


instance, no indoor water supply and an additional room is built without putting in an indoor water supply, that house, from our point of view, is not in all respects fit for habitation, but, from the point of view of the people living in the house, it is preferable perhaps to have the additional accommodation without an indoor water supply rather than to have neither of these advantages. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the circular issued by the Scottish Department of Health last July, after the report had been received. At the bottom of page 4, the Department say:
 The Housing (Rural Workers) Acts have played an important part in the improvement of rural housing, but the investigations carried out by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee show that in a number of cases these Acts have not rendered the houses fit in all respects for habitation.
It is then pointed out that assistance ought not to be payable except for dwellings that can and will be rendered in all respects fit for habitation. The next paragraph goes on to explain that in view of the Report, no promise to give assistance should be made until a statement has been submitted to the Department showing the number of rooms in the dwelling before and after the execution of the works proposed and the extent to which the dwelling will be brought up to modern requirements. We then go on to refer to certain sanitary conveniences which we regard as essential. [Interruption.] Yes, an inside water supply, and other conveniences, unless we are satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to provide them. Most local authorities have always insisted on an indoor water supply, though a few have not. In the case of those who have not insisted on it, in those parts of their area where water is at present inaccessible, nothing at all can be done. That is one reason for prolonging this Act. In a few years, perhaps, a new county scheme may bring water to these districts, and reconditioning may then be done, whereas if the Act were to end now the chance would be gone for ever. Since the issuing of this circular the number of applications we have scrutinised amount to 468. Of these only 59 were not approved by the Department, another 97 were approved with some variations on which the Department insisted, and the remaining 312 were approved without any variation. These figures show that under the new

arrangement by far the greater number of applications being made are satisfactory.
With regard to England, my right hon. Friend the Minister will, perhaps, be able to deal in the course of the subsequent stages of the Bill more fully with points that may be put to him. In the meantime, I may say that he intends to issue a circular in which advice will be given to local authorities on the design of the new houses, and it will include a section dealing with reconditioning, showing how to get best results. In his campaign for the improvement of rural housing, he is making a point of maintaining close contact with local authorities. It is his intention to include the working of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in the scope of this work. This Bill includes a condition to require that a house in respect of which a grant is given must be maintained in a fit condition, and the grant becomes repayable if this condition is not fulfilled. My right hon. Friend intends to emphasise the importance of good workmanship and sound standards of construction on every occasion.
In replying to questions asked by other hon. Members, perhaps I might dispose of purely Scottish questions first. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and West Aberdeen (Sir M. Barclay-Harvey) put two specific Scottish questions to me. He suggested that the maximum value of houses which qualified for grant should be raised from £400 to £500, and then he asked whether the value of the houses was in any way calculated with reference to the amount of money spent on reconditioning. We do not think it necessary to raise the amount to £500. As to my hon. Friend's question, the amount is calculated by the local authorities on the selling value, and has nothing to do with the amount of money spent on the house.

Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: In fact, I think the £400 is taken into consideration by some authorities. Will the Department make the position plain?

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes. I am not sure if the instances my right hon. Friend gave were rejected solely on account of cost.

Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: Yes, I understand so.

Mr. Wedderburn: In the case of reconditioned houses there are restrictions


of the rent, and these naturally reduce the selling value of the houses. If you have a house valued at £500, its gross rent is certainly more than £30—it is probably more like £40—and that would be beyond the means of an agricultural labourer. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that under the recent Housing (Agricultural Population) Bill 75 per cent. of the expenses incurred in making grants by local authorities is paid by the Exchequer in Lowland counties and 87½ per cent. in Highland counties. Under this Bill only 50 per cent. will be paid to the Lowland counties, and 75 per cent. to the Highland counties. Of course, the grant in respect of each house is twice as much under the former Bill. If a grant of £200 is made for the building of each house, and 75 per cent. is paid by the Department, the burden on the local authority will then be Under this Bill, the grant for reconditioning being £100, and 50 per cent. being paid by the State, the burden on the local authority will still be£50. It is calculated to work out at the same figure in each case My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Rathbone) asked whether more use could be made of the Sub-section in the original Act which enables grants to be given in respect of drainage improvements to more than one cottage at the same time. My right hon. Friend the Minister would welcome action by local authorities on these lines, and the Department will certainly do what they can to encourage the practice.

Mr. Rathbone: My point was that in the ordinary way if the amount is to be less than £50 the grant is not paid, but it may work out, in fact, at less than £50 per house, but if you are taking two or three houses in a row you can nevertheless go forward, although the amount would be less than £50 for each.

Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend will look into that, but, of course, the grant can only be made where a public supply of water by a local authority is not practicable.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would also like the Minister to look into the reverse point, with respect to amounts up to £100 for a row of houses, each brought in separately.

Mr. Wedderburn: I think the hon. Member asked a question on that point.

The grant is calculated separately in respect of each house. The conditions for the maximum grant are the same in those cases as in the case of an individual house. It is not to exceed £100, or two-thirds of the cost, whichever is less.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) wished to know whether smallholders were entitled to receive grants under this Bill, and he asked for Clause 7 to be explained. Clause 7, of course, has nothing to do with the question of whether a smallholder can receive a grant. It provides that if the owner of a house which is let with land has reconditioned the house, and is indirectly charging more than the permitted increase of rent by the subterfuge of increasing the rent in respect of land the local authority may prescribe the amount of rent applicable for the land and the amount for the house. With regard to the question of the hon. Member about the ability of smallholders to receive grants, that will entirely depend upon whether their economic condition is similar to that of the agricultural labourer. If their economic condition is similar to that of the farm servant—if the size of the house and earnings are comparable to those of the rural worker—they, in exactly the same way as anybody else, will be enabled to receive grants, or the owners of their houses, if they are not owners themselves, for purposes of reconditioning under the Bill.

Mr. Hopkin: Will the same principle apply to a farmer, that is, an owner-occupier, of, say, a farm of about 80 acres?

Mr. Wedderburn: I think that possibly, if it was an arable farm of 80 acres, the economic condition of the owner-occupier would be considerably superior to that of the farm worker, and therefore he would not be qualified. But if you had a crofter with 80 acres of hill grazing, his economic condition would probably not be superior to that of the farm worker. There are landholders in the Highlands with much more than 80 acres who will be entitled to receive grants under this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) asked a question about mortgages arising from paragraph 30 of his own report, which I see baffled the ingenuity of himself and his colleagues. The conundrum which defeated the prolonged labours of these expert people has proved equally insoluble by the Government


and we are not able to suggest any remedy. My hon. Friend pointed out that the local authority has the power, if it wishes, to purchase such a house and recondition it. He wanted to know under what Act it is possible. It is possible under the Act of 1935.
I would like to give a word of thanks to the Liberal benches, which at this moment seem to be more overcrowded than they usually are, for the valuable and much appreciated support they have given to the Government. I was most delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) of the pre-eminence of Devon in this matter, a county which, I believe, is pre-eminent in other ways as well. I am sure that in that county at least the administration which is being undertaken by local Liberals is highly creditable to their party. My right hon. Friend is grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey for the excellent work she has done on the committee which produced the English report, and which she has pursued with such studious diligence that she has even embraced within its scope a comparison between the Budget deficits of 1931 and 1938.
I am afraid that the far greater part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who opened for the Opposition, was concerned with a period during which I did not have the good fortune to be a Member of this House. He referred to the previous occasions upon which these Acts have been passed. He said that on that occasion he described a speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health as being characterised with his usual air of jauntiness and a few quotations. On this occasion on both sides of the House not only the jauntiness but also the few quotations have again been experienced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling talked about going back to the time of Gladstone, but I see that on the Third Reading of the 1931 Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield again said:
 I said on Second Reading that we want to get the best out of the Act. I am reminded again of what I said in 1926—it is like the question regarding what Mr. Gladstone said in 1867.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1931; col. 2377, Vol. 252.]
We seem to have had further examples this afternoon of these quotations and of

some repetition. I am exceedingly sorry that all these matters are only history to me. But I heard with the most profound admiration the right hon. Gentleman's account of the unswerving rectitude with which he has always addressed himself to this subject. I only hope that, when I have been in this House for as long as he has, I too, shall be able to look back with equal pride upon a comparable record of unbroken consistency. In the meantime, let me repeat his former example by now asking the House to give a Second Reading to a Measure which will bring to great numbers of people in the country the enjoyment of those improved standards of comfort and accommodation which public opinion now demands, without destroying those external amenities which can seldom be replaced by any modern type of construction.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir CYRIL ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
 That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, it is expedient—
A. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional sums as may become payable thereout under section four of the said Act of 1926 by reason of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) substituting the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-two for the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, as the date before which an application for assistance must be received by the local authority in order for their power to give assistance under the said Acts of 1926 and 1931 to be exercisable;
(b) authorising, in the case of a dwelling in respect of which a grant was given on application received before the second day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and which is over-crowded, the giving of a further grant exceeding the amount which, apart from the said provisions, would have been permissible, but not exceeding two-thirds of the estimated cost of the works or one


hundred pounds, whichever is the less, and not so as to exceed a total of one hundred and fifty pounds for all grants in respect of the dwelling;
(c) providing that any contributions made in respect of any grant given by a county council in the Highlands and Islands on application received after the twenty-ninth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, shall, in lieu of being an amount equal to one-half, be an amount equal to three-quarters of the estimated average annual payments referred to in Sub-section (2) of the said Section four.
B. To authorise sums repayable to the Minister of Health or to the Department of Health for Scotland, under the said Act of 1926, on a breach of conditions applicable to a dwelling under that Act or on exercise of an option to repay conferred thereby, to be ascertained by reference to a part, in lieu of by reference to the whole, of the contributions made by the Minister or the Department in respect of the dwelling."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir K. Wood.]

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.56 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
On Second Readings the House approves or disapproves the principle of a Bill. The principle of this Bill is the improvement of the administration of justice. That is a principle which commends itself to every right hon. and hon. Member in whatever quarter of the House they may sit, and it might, therefore, be sufficient for me to state that principle and then sit down. But the House will see that after the words "Administration of Justice" in the Title of the Bill, there are inserted in brackets the words "Miscellaneous Provisions." That also produces the result that this Bill does not lend itself to one of those speeches which may be heard from time to time on the moving of a Second Reading of a Bill which can build itself up to an impressive and signal oratorical peroration.
In order to explain this Bill to the House it is necessary to deal consecutively with a number of somewhat miscellaneous matters. The Bill is based upon certain of the recommendations contained in the

report of a Royal Commission which sat under the chairmanship of the late Lord Peel on the Despatch of Business at Common Law, and also upon certain recommendations of the Business of the Courts Committee. Clauses 1 to 4, which arose out of certain recommendations of the Royal Commission, and a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Archibald Bodkin, which was appointed as a result of the recommendations of that Commission, dealt with quarter sessions. The Commission proposed that, in order to relieve judges at assize of certain cases which now come before them, it would be desirable to extend the jurisdiction of quarter sessions, provided that the chairman or deputy-chairman presiding at those quarter sessions was legally qualified.
The proposals in the present Bill extend the jurisdiction of quarter sessions in cases where there is a legally qualified chairman or deputy-chairman, and they encourage the appointment of such legally qualified chairmen in the cases where they do not exist at present by enabling a salary to be paid to such chairman in cases where their services are not obtainable without remuneration. The work of quarter sessions varies very much in different counties. There are many quarter sessions which have a legally qualified chairman and a legally qualified deputy-chairman, but there are others which have not. There are certain counties in which the work of quarter sessions is not heavy, and where there is not difficulty, and we hope there will not be difficulty in future, in obtaining, without remuneration, the services of a legally qualified chairman.
In some cases the work is such that the duties of the chairman can be performed by men who have other duties which they perform at the same time. There are, however, other counties in which the work of quarter sessions is much greater—and it will be greater as a result of this Bill if the chairman is a legally qualified person—in which it may well be difficult, if not impossible, always to obtain, without remuneration, the services of a legally qualified chairman. That that is so is proved by the fact that in at least two counties they have obtained by Private Bill, power to make payment to the legally qualified chairman of their quarter sessions. This Bill deals with the matter by providing that the


extension of the jurisdiction of quarter sessions provided for in the Bill can be conferred only in cases where there is a legally qualified chairman or deputy-chairman existing and available to preside at the sessions. The Bill also provides for the payment of such chairman by enabling that result to be achieved, not as at present by the promotion of a Private Bill, but under conditions with which I shall deal in detail a little later.
These matters are dealt with in the first four Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 enables His Majesty, on representations made at the instance of the Lord Chancellor, on application from the court of quarter sessions, to appoint a legally qualified chairman, and those available for consideration for such appointment is any person who is, or has been, a barrister or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing. Sub-section (4) contains an exception with respect to the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of London and the County Palatine of Lancaster, which are already provided for in other Statutes.
Clause 2 extends the jurisdiction of quarter sessions to offences mentioned in the Second Schedule, where the court is presided over by a legally qualified chairman. Clause 2 (2) provides that in the case of those persons who have the qualifications set out in Sub-section (3), the court of quarter sessions may appoint their legally qualified chairman without going to the Lord Chancellor. Sub-section (3) is more restricted than Clause (1), which applies to banisters and solicitors of over 10 years' standing. Under Subsection (3) persons who hold or have held certain high offices, including that which I hold at the moment, can be appointed as the legally qualified chairman, and that will bring to those quarter sessions the extended powers of jurisdiction without the necessity of an application to the Lord Chancellor and appointment by His Majesty at the instance of the Lord Chancellor.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 2 relate to legally qualified persons who can at present be appointed chairman or deputy-chairman of quarter sessions under the Local Government Act, 1888, the Quarter Sessions (London) Act, 1896, the Lancashire Quarter Sessions Act, 1928. These Acts all provide at present, without

this Bill, for the payment of legally qualified persons. Paragraph (f) deals with boroughs, and gives extended jurisdiction to recorders who are, of course, legally qualified persons, in the case of a borough having a population of not less than 50,000. Sub-sections (4) and (5) deal with cases in which there may be a legally qualified chairman in existence but who may be unable to preside over the court at the moment.
Clause 3 deals with a very technical matter in regard to the power of quarter sessions. Inconvenience arises owing to the fact that a quarter sessions can only adjourn to a definite date. They have to wind up their proceedings absolutely or adjourn to a definite date. It would be more convenient if they could adjourn generally and reassemble when occasion arises to make the reassembly desirable. The Clause is somewhat complicated, and it is complicated for the reason that the distinction between quarter sessions and petty sessions depends upon the fact that quarter sessions assemble only every quarter.
Clause 4 makes provision for the payment of the chairman. As I have already explained, there are many cases to-day where the work is done by legally qualified persons without remuneration, and it is hoped that that will continue. I think there is every ground for thinking that it will continue, particularly in the case of counties where the work is not heavy. There is no reason to suppose that in the future as in the past those who have the good fortune to have legal qualifications will not be ready to do unpaid work as chairmen of quarter sessions, in circumstances in which they are reasonably able to do so, because the work is such that they can fit it in with other duties they are performing, or in cases where they have retired and are competent to do this work and to serve their country in that way. There are, however, cases in which owing to the amount of the work that falls on the chairman it is difficult—and the difficulty will not decrease in the future—to obtain, without remuneration, a legally qualified chairman.
Therefore this Clause provides for remuneration to be paid. Subsection (1) provides that an agreement will be made between the court of quarter sessions for any county or division and the county council that a salary shall be paid to the


chairman or deputy-chairman appointed under the Act, and the county council shall pay to the chairman or deputy-chairman a salary at such rate as may be approved by the Lord Chancellor. Under the present procedure that result can only be brought about by the promotion of a Private Bill. This Clause avoids that necessity. The amount of salary to be paid is made subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. The work which will fall upon the chairman differs very much from county to county, but it is desirable that, subject to the extent of the duties, there should be reasonable uniformity as to remuneration. The Lord Chancellor is in a position to know what has been or is being paid elsewhere, and as the salary to be paid will be subject to his approval, that arrangement will ensure that there is reasonable uniformity, having regard to the different duties which the chairman will have to perform. There are certain consequential provisions with regard to Middlesex and Hertfordshire to which I need not specifically refer.
Clauses 5 and 6 deal with assizes and with committal to assizes or quarter sessions. The power to cancel assizes is at present vested in the Lord Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, but the person who is in the best position to know whether that power should be exercised is the Judge who is going on the circuit on which the assize is to be held. Therefore, Clause 5 vests that power in him. Clause 6 makes an Amendment as to committal to assize or quarter sessions by justices. This matter was dealt with under the Act of 1889, which enacts that Justices should commit to quarter sessions in cases where the offence was triable by quarter sessions, unless there were special reasons to the contrary. There is evidence that in some cases justices are too ready to commit to assizes cases which should be tried by quarter sessions, and they do not specify the special reasons why they have diverged from the normal course. The Clause specifies what those special reasons are, namely, a case in which the circumstances make the case unusually grave or difficult, or that serious delay or inconvenience will be occasioned by committal to quarter sessions. Sub-section (3) provides for a drafting amendment

to Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925.
Clauses 7 to 12 deal with quite a different matter. They arise out of certain recommendations by the Business of Courts Committee, and deal with proceedings in the Crown side of the King's Bench Division, and in particular with what are called prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari. The whole and sole object of this Clause is to simplify what is of use and to abolish what is obsolete. Those who have at present a right to get a writ of mandamus, prohibition of certiorari will have exactly the same right if the Bill is passed, but the procedure by which they get it is simplified. A mass of quite obsolete matter in the Crown Office Rule will be able to be abolished, and the actual form of the procedure will be intelligible and in accordance with the general procedure provisions with regard to orders of the Court to-day. It will be as intelligible as the normal orders made by a court, whereas at present it is encumbered by a mass of unintelligible archaic matter, much of which is disregarded at present but which cannot be got rid of without authority. The broad effect of it is that the court will be able to make an order in the ordinary form. Clause 9 is concerned with informations in the nature of quo warranto, which are abolished. Quo warranto is a writ taken out by a person who desires to say that somebody is not entitled to hold the office he claims to hold, claims, that is as a legal right, unlike hon. Members opposite who say that we hold offices which they are entitled to hold. It is an extremely complicated and archaic procedure and it is abolished. By Sub-section (2) of the Clause this class of proceeding will now be taken by proper and ordinary process.

Mr. Magnay: Will the hon. and learned Member explain what quo warranto means?

The Attorney-General: It means "by what warrant." Clause 10 provides power by rules of court prescribing the procedure. Clause 11 deals with the provisions for indictments being filed in the King's Bench Division. At present there are a number of miscellaneous and somewhat obscure cases in which this can be done, but they are extremely rarely used. The Committee recommended that the general power of the High Court to order


a case into the King's Bench Division should be preserved. This is done by Clause 11 (1) (a). They also recommended that the provisions which exist for the trial of certain offences, such as treason committed abroad and certain offences of Colonial Governors, at bar in the King's Bench Division should be maintained. In Sub-section (2) they confer on the court a power which does not exist at present, namely, to direct that in spite of those Statutes such a case can be tried in the ordinary way at assize if the court so direct instead of in the King's Bench Division. The Clause carries out this recommendation. Sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of the Clause simplify very much the procedure in connection with applications for the alteration of venue. The matter is the subject of extremely obscure Crown Office rules, and also there is what is known as Palmer's Act. This Clause repeals Palmer's Act and gives the High Court power to alter the venue in the interests of justice and makes it quite clear that it can order a change to the Central Criminal Court or to any other assize. Clause 12 deals with outlawry proceedings. These are proceedings under which if the defendant did not appear he could he outlawed. They are very archaic and have not been exercised upon anyone within living memory. They cumber the Crown Office Rules and are very much better out of the way.

Major Milner: The hon. and learned Member appreciates that he is repealing Magna Charta?

The Attorney-General: No, not the substance, only two words—" outlawed, or." The exhibition of Articles of the Peace is also an archaic procedure which is never resorted to at the present time, and therefore it is better that it should be abolished, not for the sake of abolition but because it cumbers the ground. Criminal informations at the instance of a private prosecutor have fallen completely into desuetude, but the Committee recommended that the power of the Attorney-General to file informations ex officio should be retained. This was last done in the case of a libel on the Sovereign. It does not of course enable the Attorney-General to make anything an offence which is not an offence. The only effect of it is that in certain cases of

that kind the matter goes for trial without preliminary proceedings before community justices. Clause 13 deals with international conventions affecting the jurisdiction of the English Courts. Under the Warsaw Convention the foreign Powers who were parties to that Convention agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of our courts, and power, therefore, had to be taken under the Statute for enabling rules to be made so that that could be effected. It may be that in future conventions there may be similar clauses though the rest of the Convention does not require legislation. Therefore, it is desirable to have a general power that in cases where under a Convention, a foreign Power submits to our jurisdiction, there should be power to make it effective.
Clause 14 fills up what I think may well have been an accidental omission from the powers conferred by Parliament upon the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Court for varying orders for alimony and maintenance. At present, in cases where the wife's income is a relevant circumstance in making the order, the alteration of that income does not entitle the order to be varied. Clause 15 deals with a rather technical matter. The Mayor's and City of London Court has an interesting history, but the position, broadly, is that the Mayor's Court, which has jurisdiction in matters of £100, if those matters arise in the City of London, is at present in the anomalous position that if there is an appeal on a question of law it goes to the Court of Appeal, whereas if there is, as there can be in certain cases over £100, an appeal on law as well as on fact, it goes to the Divisional Court. This Clause deals with that situation. Clause 16 is based on a recommendation of the Royal Commission, and provides that a plaintiff may start proceedings in the county court where the plaint is in respect of a matter up to £200. The defendant has a right to have the proceedings transferred to the High Court. It is true that the change is not a very large one, since the county court already has jurisdiction by consent, but it has been found that with the parties at arm's length, consent is sometimes difficult to get. It is hoped that this provision will result in a number of cases with which the county court is well able to deal being started and continued in that court.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not, in effect, still a consent procedure, since the defendant is given a power to take the case to the High Court on his own motion?

The Attorney-General: In that sense, it is a consent procedure. What the Royal Commission felt was that if you had the two parties at arm's length, it might not be possible to get them together to make the consent order. If the plaintiff is given the power to start proceedings in the county court, the defendant may say that he does not mind the case coming before the county court, and will not object. The provision turns on the difference between a man having the right to object and giving his consent. Clause 17 gives the Chancery Division a power which it had until the County Courts Act, 1934, of remitting cases to the county court even though there had been no application to that effect. It was a very useful power, and therefore, it is being again conferred on the Chancery Division. Clause 18 fills up an unintentional omission from the rule-making power under the County Courts Act. Clause 19 contains some minor consequential Amendments, and Clause 20 deals with the short title. I have already referred to the first Schedule, which sets out the position with regard to additional offences triable at quarter sessions, and I do not think I need refer to the other Schedules at this stage.
Before concluding, I wish to add that I realise, in connection with the administration of justice, the very great importance that is attached by those specially interested in this subject to the matter which really, perhaps, lies at the root of the question, namely, a sufficiency of judges to deal promptly with the appeals and cases which are sent up. This Bill, in extending the jurisdiction of quarter sessions, in conferring the power referred to on the judges at Assize, together possibly with other matters which have been dealt with by rule, will, it is hoped, assist in that direction; but I would like to say that in addition, although, of course, it would be out of order to discuss it in dealing with this Bill, I am authorised, on behalf of the Government, to give an assurance that the Government propose, as soon as Parliamentary time permits, to lay before Parliament proposals for further additions to the judicial bench of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, as hon. Members

know, includes both the Court of Appeal and judges of first instance. I cannot, for reasons which every hon. Member will appreciate, deal to-day with the question as to what form those proposals will take, but realising how closely related that question is to the general question of the administration of justice raised by this Bill, I wished to make it clear to the House that the Government have that aspect of the matter also very much in mind.

8.33 p.m.

Sir Stafford Griggs: I am obliged to the Attorney-General for his full explanation of the Bill, but I am sorry he had not time to give us an explanation of the Fourth Schedule, because I was looking forward to a dissertation concerning an "act for proclamations to be made before the exigent be awarded into foreign shires," and many other things with equally fascinating titles. I am sure everybody is glad to cut out as much old wood as possible from the legal tree; but it seems a pity that we have to deal with it in this way by these Measures which deal now with one little bit and then with another little bit, without ever really getting down to a fundamental law reform. This is another example of several we have had dealing with some comparatively small matters. For instance, there are a good many people who are waiting to see the archaism of practising suits by and against the Crown got rid of. They are just as archaic as the many matters which the Attorney-General mentioned in his speech—English informations, Latin informations, petitions of right and so on. When are the Government going to let us have provisions which will make those proceedings the same as all other proceedings in the courts, as they ought to be, and as I think everybody, except possibly the Inland Revenue Department, think they ought to be?
I have very few observations to make on the Bill. The most important part is that which deals with quarters sessions, and I protest against the way in which they are dealt with. It is being made permissive for certain quarter sessions, if they like, to have legally qualified chairmen and deputy chairmen. It is obvious, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and from what everybody else has said, that it is highly desirable to have legally qualified chairmen and


deputy chairmen. How is one to say to a person who is about to be tried before a court of quarter sessions, "Because you live in a small county you cannot expect to get the same justice as you would get if you lived in the big county next door "? But it is even more serious than that, because here we find the Government saying that it is highly desirable, indeed almost necessary, to have a legally qualified president in a court of quarter sessions and adding, "But we do not insist upon it." The Government, in effect, are saying that the counties can do as they like in the matter. Once the Government have come to the conclusion, as any Government must, that it is highly desirable in modern days, with the vast amount of administration of the law which has to be done by the quarter sessions, to have a fully qualified legal chairman, surely the proper thing to do is to make it compulsory for all quarter sessions to have such chairmen. The Government cannot leave it in the air and say, "Let those who desire to have justice properly administered take the necessary steps to that end, and let others do as they please." But that, in effect, is what the Government are saying by Clause 1 of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: indicated dissent.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head but that is the effect of Clause I. He must agree that after this Measure has been passed, there may be quarter sessions which will not have legally qualified chairmen. It is useless to say that everybody will appoint a legal chairman because they are told that they may do so. There may be people who will refuse to do so and those people will be just in those places where there are dear old gentlemen who do not want to give up the chairmanships which they have held in the past, and those dear old gentlemen are the very people who have caused all the criticism of chairmen of quarter sessions. There is no justification for saying that people are to be tried at quarter sessions by some one who, admittedly, on the face of the provisions of this Bill is not a proper person to try them. If the Government propose to introduce this system—and I am glad it is to be introduced—of having legally qualified chairmen, and deputy chairmen, let them apply it to all quarter sessions. Everybody has the same right to have justice administered promptly,

whatever the county in which they live. We must bear in mind the fact that in many boroughs there are recorders who are fully qualified, and it is ridiculous not to do for the larger units, what is already done for many of these small boroughs.
There is a further aspect of this matter which ought to be considered. Is it not desirable to have some centralisation of the system of criminal jurisdiction in each county, thus getting rid of recorders? They are another archaism. In other days, when transport was more difficult than it is to-day, it was necessary to have all these courts, but under modern conditions it is unnecessary, say in Kent, to have a number of recorders as we have to-day. It would be far better to centralise the system and to have a fully qualified person paid a proper salary to administer the criminal law for the whole county. A judge of the High Court could go down to do it or a chairman of quarter sessions could do it, but you should have a fully qualified person to do the work and get rid of all the small subsidiary jurisdictions which exist at the present time. If that were done in every county it would result in a far more efficient and satisfactory administration of the law. You could then pass on to the quarter sessions practically every criminal matter, and it would save the time of the High Court judges at Assizes and avoid the necessity of appointing additional judges.
The reason why it is necessary to appoint more High Court judges, is because the present judges are out of London so frequently and for such long periods engaged on assize work. There would be a sufficient number of them now, if it were not for that fact. If you could pass on to properly qualified chairmen of quarter sessions a large part, if not the whole, of the criminal jurisdiction, you would save a good deal of the judges' time and enable them to spend more of it in London. If you insist on sending judges into the country to deal with these matters instead of appointing other legally qualified people to do so, then you will have to appoint more judges. It may be said that it does not matter much, provided that properly qualified people do the work. That seems to be the central point, but we are wasting a great deal of the available legal energy by having about the countryside all these little


recorders' courts which are, as I say, unnecessary under modern conditions. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider the centralisation of the criminal jurisdiction in the various counties as a means of economising in judicial effort, as well as ensuring greater efficiency in the administration of justice.
I have not much to say about the details of the Bill. I might complain that the amendments of the law which it proposes, are not more sweeping and that it does not cover a great many other matters, but there is only one small point which I desire to raise on Clause 16. I am not sure whether there is anything in it or not, but I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to look into it. That is the point of how far this Bill will affect poor persons' procedure and whether it will take out of the ambit of that procedure persons who are at present entitled to utilise it. It seems to me that there is a possibility of people who now get the benefit of that procedure in High Courts being unable to get the benefit of it in the county court, in matters involving between £100 and £200. I am not certain myself whether that is so or not, but I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will examine the question, because, obviously, it would be a very serious thing to deprive people in this indirect way of the benefit of that procedure. Subject to the points which I have mentioned, we shall not oppose the Bill.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: Like the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) I long for the day when the whole system of the administration of justice will be dealt with in one comprehensive Measure and when the Attorney-General will be able, as he said, to do what he is unable to do in the case of this patchwork Bill, namely, lead up to a great peroration declaring that, at long last, we have throughout this land one system of justice administered according to one standard. I hope the day will come when all the courts will be linked together in one great system instead of having a number of small courts with different jurisdictions, with pettifogging little rights in one place which do not exist in another and with little privileges surviving in one county but not found in another.

This Bill is undoubtedly another patchwork Measure, but I am grateful for such small mercies as it provides, and I am still more grateful to hear the Attorney-General say that the Government are considering further additions to His Majesty's Supreme Court. I hope that will mean an addition to the Court of Appeal which, as it is now constituted, with only six Judges in two Divisions, is unable to cope with the appeals which are going up from the lower courts.
It has often been said that delayed justice is the most serious form of injustice. At present there is a long delay before a case comes into court. Then there is the trouble and anxiety of the trial. At last the decision is given and it might seem that that was the end of the matter, but not a bit of it. The loser puts in notice of appeal and there is a further long delay before that appeal is heard. No wonder it has been said that people shun the law like a plague. It is wrong that they should do so. If there is a genuine dispute between two people they ought to be ready to place the matter before a Judge in whom they have trust, and it ought not to be so expensive that people will settle their claims rather than submit them to court. I hope, as I say, that there will be an addition to the Court of Appeal and I hope there will be an addition, which I have asked for repeatedly, to the High Court of justice, especially the King's Bench Division. There are too few Judges and there is too much delay. The delay is not only in London, where cases are still awaiting trial which were set down last year, but also on the circuits. We have still this extraordinary position, that Judges go to small towns to hear cases and do not go to larger towns. Far be it from me to take away privileges from small towns, but I have often heard it said that it is a great advantage to a county to have a red Judge visiting the county town, and if that is so, it ought to be a greater advantage that he should visit the large industrial centres and see to the administration of justice there.
Why is it that there are small towns with only 1,000 or 2,000 inhabitants which still have the advantage of seeing a judge of assize, while there are still something like 3o towns of over 100,000 inhabitants who have never seen one? Why is it that even now, if there is a


dispute, say, in Hull, it cannot be decided there, but the parties have to travel to Leeds or York? I remember that when I was a member of this Royal Commission hearing evidence, when the assizes were sitting at Leeds or York, there was a special train running every morning to carry witnesses, jury, solicitors, and parties there, and thus putting an extra expense upon the parties, when it would have been quite easy for the judge to sit in Hull on the spot and hear the evidence there. I hope these matters will be dealt with by the Government.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol said that probably the most important part of this Bill was that dealing with quarter sessions, and I heartily agree with him. The House will, I am sure, forgive my referring again to myself as having sat on the Royal Commission of which the late Viscount Peel was chairman, when I took precisely the same view in regard to quarter sessions as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just stated. I think there should be in every county a Central Criminal Court similar exactly to what we have in London. You have in London a recorder, a common serjeant, and a judge of the City of London Court, and any one of those three can try almost any case that is sent to the Central Criminal Court, except that the judge himself takes certain special cases and cases which he feels, because of their importance or their difficulty or because life is at stake, that he himself should take. That is what I feel ought to be done with regard to the other counties throughout the land, that you should have in each of them a Central Criminal Court presided over by a person qualified to sit as judge of that court, that practically all cases should be referred to him, but that if a case were difficult, or if it involved such important matters that the judge himself ought to take it, and certainly if it involved life, then it ought to be referred to the assizes. In that case, of course, you would be obliged to have a qualified chairman of quarter sessions or a person qualified to preside over such a court.
I thought that system was the better system, and that it ought to be applied equally, because I believe, and I am sure every Member of the House believes, that there should be only one system, that what is right for London should also be

right for Warwickshire, for Northumberland, for industrial areas, and that it should also be applied in its own way to each rural area as well. All of us who sat on that commission agreed that the chairman should be a qualified chairman and that it was time that every county should have a qualified person in the chair. We disagreed with regard to his jurisdiction and with regard to the forming of the central criminal court, but we all agreed that the time had come when there should be a qualified chairman in every county. What will happen now? Each county will decide for itself whether or not it will have a qualified chairman. It is an extraordinary state of things that in this year of 1938, instead of having one system for the whole country, we should allow different systems to prevail, one system in a county which refuses to have its legally qualified chairman and another system in a county which decides to have such a chairman. It is for the county itself, and not for the people of the county to decide. I am not at all sure how it will be done. I take it that it will be done by the justices' meeting, and it is to be left to them to decide, I suppose, perhaps by a majority, which they will have. Therefore, you will have in county "A" an unqualified chairman with a limited jurisdiction, and in county "B," next door, you will have a qualified chairman with an extended jurisdiction. That is an appalling state of things, and everybody is agreed that all archaisms ought to be done away with and that one system should prevail throughout.
I am not quite sure how it will work with regard to a qualified chairman. I have had the privilege of presiding over the quarter sessions in my own county. For the last seven years now I have not been in active practice, but the magistrates in my county two years ago paid me the very high compliment of making me chairman of the bench. I was in active practice for over 20 years. I am not at all sure what I shall have to advise my fellow magistrates, whether I shall have to say to them, "What do you want me to do? I will willingly resign, and then I suppose you will apply to the Lord Chancellor to see whether he will appoint someone. I will tell you this, that the Lord Chancellor himself has promised, and it is in the Bill, that he will give


every consideration to any recommendation that you may make, and the chances are that he will appoint me again." Suppose they say, "The new Lord Chancellor may not know about you, or he may know about you, and that may be a very good reason why he should not appoint you again." What is my county going to do? Will they have the extended jurisdiction, or will they have the limited jurisdiction because they have not got a chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor? That is the kind of extraordinary position that one gets by patchwork legislation of this kind.
Now I want to pass to another part of the Bill, and to thank the Attorney-General for introducing an Amendment into the present law which was badly needed, and that is in Clause 11, Subsections (3) and (4). I do not know whether the House will recollect that some time ago some trouble arose in Wales with regard to the burning of an aerodrome in Carnarvonshire. Three persons were arrested and brought before the magistrates, and they were committed to Carnarvon Assizes. They were tried there by a judge and jury, and the jury disagreed, whereupon the Attorney-General moved the High Court for the transfer of that case to the Central Criminal Court in London. We never desired to enter into the merits of the matter or to raise any question as to innocence or otherwise, but there was not a single Welshman, and not a Welsh Member of this House, who did not very strongly object to the moving of that case from the county of Carnarvon to be tried in London. We felt that it was an insult to the whole of Wales, and we said so.
The reply of the Attorney-General was that unfortunately, owing to what we know as the Palmer's Act, he had no option in the matter but to ask the High Court that it should be sent to the Central Criminal Court for trial. Whatever may have been the law in the past, this Clause makes it clear that should such circumstances arise again, should it be impossible perhaps to have justice done, or should it be felt either by the prosecution, or, as is often the case, by the prisoner himself that there would not be a fair trial in the prisoner's own county, then, at any rate, the matter need not be moved completely out of the district but can be

referred to the adjacent county. For that Amendment we are all grateful.
I want to turn to the extension of the jurisdiction of the county court. Again, unfortunately, I differ from my colleagues. They were of opinion that the jurisdiction should be extended but extended in just the way in which it is now done in this Bill. The jurisdiction is really left exactly as it was, because it is jurisdiction by consent. We had a considerable body of evidence with regard to this matter, because, of course, you will always get people who will say that the County Court is the poor man's court and that if you extend its jurisdiction you will thereby shut out a great number of persons from being heard on a particular day and their cases will have to be adjourned to another time. I am not in the least surprised to hear "Hear hear's" from my two hon. and learned Friends, who are both, like me, King's Counsel. I wonder how many years have elapsed since they practised in the County Court and realised what was happening. Many years have elapsed since I practised there. In 1934 and 1935 we heard a whole body of evidence from County Court judges on this matter. There was not one judge who objected to the extension of the jurisdiction or who objected on the ground that it would shut out a number of small cases. May I refer to the evidence of the County Court judge who was chosen by his colleagues to give evidence on behalf of all of them, namely, Sir Mordaunt Snagge. In 1903 the jurisdiction of the County Court was put up to £100. Up to that day it was £50. It began at £20. Sir Mordaunt Snagge said:
 It was said in 1903 that the poor man would be squeezed out, it was said that there would be a lack of accommodation, it was said that the judges would be clogged with small work; and those are the points which I think are substantially taken at the present moment. In regard to the poor man being squeezed out, I am expressing only my personal view that an increase of jurisdiction up to £200 would have no effect whatever in squeezing out the small man. It must, I think, he realised that there are introduced in the county courts an increasing number of proceedings in the course of the year. I think the number is roughly 1,300,000, but of those cases 1,200,000 are dealt with either where there is no appearance by the defendant or where they have been struck out or withdrawn. When you come to consider the judges' work you find that roughly somewhere between 22,000 and 23,000 are what the judges themselves have to deal with.


There are 500 courts, and it is easy to extend their number.
 So far as the poor man is concerned, therefore, it seems to me that you are dealing largely with the poor man who is a defendant, and who is much more concerned with the way in which he is going to pay his debt rather than with contesting the claim which is being made against him; and one remembers that the county courts were passed for the purpose of the easy collection of debts. Now, so far as the small cases are concerned, in my view it would present no serious difficulty to arrange for the poor man's cases, the little cases which are the vast majority, to be dealt with by the registrar.
I humbly agree. I notice that in another place the Lord Chancellor estimated—and it was an estimate also given to the Commission—that the increased number of cases that the county court judges would have dealt with, based on the number that are now brought in the High Court, was 750 if the jurisdiction were increased to £200; but see what will happen according to this Bill. Suppose a plaintiff is moved to bring his action in the county court and the amount in dispute is £150. Proceedings go on for a while, and then the defendant, anxious not to have the case heard, does what Members often do after 11 o'clock in this House, and says, "I object." He need not give any reason, but because he says "I object," the judge has no option but to tell the plaintiff that he has started in the wrong court and must go to the High Court. In the meantime, there would be the costs of having to go to a court to which under this Bill the plaintiff was entitled to go.
It is an extraordinary procedure. I would be in favour, as I said in my report, of increasing this jurisdiction to £200 absolutely without any question being allowed of it being taken away from the County Court. But, if necessary, I would compromise to this extent to see how it would work: I would increase the amount to £200, but I would not allow the defendant to be master of the proceedings; if he objected and the reason was a good one, I would let the County Court judge decide whether he should try it or whether the case should go to the High Court. I would remind the House that the increase of the sum to £200 is not really extending the jurisdiction of the County Court because £200 now was worth only £100 in 1903.
There is a much more important point with regard to the jurisdiction of the County Court on which I again differ

from my colleagues, probably because they have not had the same experience of circuit work, of country life and of villages that I have had. I want the County Court judge to be able to deal with cases of libel and slander.

Mr. Lyons: And divorce.

Mr. Davies: I think it would be a suitable tribunal to deal with divorce cases as well. We have still this extraordinary position that the undefended divorce can be tried by a High Court judge on circuit, but only in certain counties. The defended case, which costs the parties most, and therefore is a greater penalty upon them, can be tried only in London unless the petitioner is a poor person, who is defined as a person earning £4 or less.
I mentioned this matter when we were last discussing a Measure of this kind. It was proposed to create two new divorce judges, leaving the trial of divorce cases in London whenever they were defended. I gave, of my imagination, a case of a clerk in Newcastle who was in receipt of £250 a year and whose wife was moved to start divorce proceedings against him. If she did so there would be at once a claim for him to provide alimony, a claim for him to provide security for the costs, not only of his own solicitor but of her solicitor, and her counsel, and this amount would have to be increased from time to time as her solicitor incurred more and more expenses, until the day would arrive when he would want a sufficient sum of money to bring her witnesses up to London and for her solicitor and for them to remain in London waiting for the case to come on. All that money would have to be provided by the respondent before he could possibly provide for his own defence. I said, and I think rightly said, that that was a premium upon—I think it is right to say —immorality, because there must be any number of people who say, "It is no use me trying to defend this; I cannot afford to do it, and I will let the case go."
The week after I had said that in the House of Commons a letter came to me from York giving an actual case. What was worse, it was the case of a school teacher. Unfortunately, he had had this charge brought against him by his wife. His salary was less than £250. He was still in charge of the house and of the family; his wife had gone. He wrote:


" I still want to keep my house, I still hope that these proceedings will collapse, but in the meantime I have got to find the money for my wife's solicitors, otherwise I must let the case go, but if I do let the case go I lose my position as a school teacher and will never stand a chance of getting another." He asked me, "What can you do? Where is the justice in this?" I had to reply, "I can do nothing. I have already mentioned your case to the House of Commons, little thinking that it was occurring in actual practice. Unless you can find or borrow the money from your friends to defend this action you will lose your home and you will lose your position." That is the position in which we have allowed things to be, and I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend when he says that these cases might well and easily be tried by County Court judges.
Let me come to cases of libel and slander. It is said that if County Courts are left to deal with actions for libel or slander we shall get pettifogging cases brought up, but if they are they will be dealt with and finished, and the costs will not be as high. There is nothing so cruel as the tittle-tattle of a village, and there is many a person suffering to-day from tittle-tattle. If such persons do go to see their solicitor he tells them, "You can bring an action." But where? Only in the High Court—or in the Assize Court, with High Court costs—and the litigant can appear only by counsel. Why should not these cases be tried in the County Courts? The very solicitor who was advising the person could appear before the County Court, and only County Court costs would be involved. I am sorry that I have detained the House so long, but these are matters which affect the people throughout the land, they affect every constituency, and I wish only that more Members were taking an interest in the administration of justice in their own constituencies.

9.10 p.m.

Major Milner: I am sure that the whole House will agree, as I do, with a very great deal of what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davis) has just said. What we should all like to see is a consistent and uniform system of law in this country, and while it is true, as the hon. and learned Member says,

that these matters are being dealt with in a somewhat piecemeal fashion, I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that this is a small matter—I think he said a comparatively small matter—because little by little these various reforms are effecting something like a silent revolution in the law and legal practice in this country. This Bill is no exception to that rule. One has only to turn to the Fourth Schedule to see that there are no fewer than 40 Acts which it is proposed to repeal in whole or in part. Some of them are among the most ancient in the land, beginning with Magna Charta, in which, it is true, only two words are repealed. Among them are Acts passed in the reigns of almost all the Kings and Queens who have sat on the throne of England. Whole Acts, whole chapters, whole Sections are being repealed, and it is true to say that little by little and without I am sure the full appreciation of the general public—and I am very doubtful whether the legal profession as a whole appreciates what is taking place—a silent revolution is being effected in the law and practice of this country.
In the Bill before us drastic alterations are being made in three respects. On the side of the criminal law considerably increased jurisdiction is being conferred upon quarter sessions. They are a very ancient court. It is now proposed to appoint a legally qualified and, in appropriate cases, a paid chairman of quarter sessions. On the civil side, again, cases are to be transferred from the High Court to the County Courts, which year by year are having additional duties thrust upon them. In my experience the County Court judges do most valuable work, but one ought not to forget that in many industrial areas they have a very great amount of work to do, and I should hope that that fact will be taken into account in any review such as has been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Finally, the ancient prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari, in which lawyers have revelled for generations—

Mr. Silverman: Not revelled.

Major Milner: Revelled I say—in which some lawyers have revelled for hundreds of years, are being abolished. Let us admit that they have played their part in obtaining the liberties which the people of


this country possess, and in some instances still have a part to play. This may sound sentimental, but I am sure that practising lawyers and others who have these matters in mind cannot mark their passing without, at any rate, a sigh of regret, I will not say a tear. If the necessities and requirements of the time demand it there is no more to be said, except to congratulate the Lord Chancellor, his predecessors, the Law Officers of the Crown and all those responsible, for the good work which they are undoubtedly doing in bringing these Bills before the House from time to time. The real question is as to the desirability and the usefulness of the proposals in the Bill. I do not propose to go into the proposals in detail, but I would ask whether they have been submitted to the appropriate associations such as the Law Society and the Association of Justices of the Peace, who ought to be consulted before legislation of this sort, which is extremely wide in scope and touches a great variety of subjects, is brought before this House. I should be glad to be informed whether such consultations have taken place.
In regard to Clause 1, there can be no doubt that in the great majority of cases the proposal is, in substance, very desirable. I know of a court of quarter sessions which had, up till quite recently, a very old chairman, a layman. He had sat as chairman for many years and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for the Wentworth Division (Mr. Paling) knows the court well. I hope he has never appeared in front of it. Very great feeling has been caused from time to time by the injustice alleged, rightly or wrongly, to have been perpetrated there. There is no question that qualified chairmen should be appointed to all courts of quarter sessions. As a member of the legal profession I am extremely pleased, and I think I am supported in this by many hon. Members, including some who belong to the higher branch of the profession, to see that a solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing may be considered as a possible chairman of quarter sessions. That qualification might be made available in a much greater variety of positions than is at present the case.
It always was a mystery to me that the solicitor to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health should always be

a barrister, but it is always the case, as hon. Members will see by looking through the list of names. I do not see why the solicitor to the Ministry of Labour should not be a solicitor. Largely due to the fact that the Lord Chancellor, who is a barrister, has had a finger in all these appointments, a sort of vogue or practice has grown up of appointing members of the higher branch to those positions. I hope that the Solicitor-General will take note of my view that more provision should be made for solicitors to be appointed to legal appointments.

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to be Solicitor-General.

Major Milner: I shall not say what I was going to say about that matter. The Clause I am discussing permits or authorises justices at quarter sessions to make representations to the Lord Chancellor. I think it right that those representations should be made, and that justices should have some say in regard to appointments. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be guided in the great majority of cases by the representations which they make, Another desirable provision in the Bill which might be extended to other appointments is that the chairman or deputy-chairman shall hold office for such term as may be specified in the appointment, and not at large as is so frequently the case. It is desirable that all public appointments should be made for a specified time in order that they might be reviewed at the end of the time.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend in regard to the jurisdiction of quarter sessions that the provision in the Bill is very curious. It really means that unless all courts of quarter sessions have chairmen who are qualified within the meaning of Clause 2, those courts shall not have the extended jurisdiction which they would have if they had a legally qualified chairman. I cannot see any justification for that differentiation. All courts ought to be given the same jurisdiction and there should be no differentiation such as is proposed in the Bill. Incidentally, in this matter, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol, without passing any examination or being appointed or anything of that sort, be-


cause they have been law officers of the Crown, are ipso facto deemed to be legally qualified chairmen of quarter sessions. Perhaps in those circumstances they ought not to have spoken on this matter.
In connection with justices of the peace I would ask the Lord Chancellor's or other appropriate Department to look into the question of the repeated adjournments, particularly in London, of cases which come before petty sessional courts. I remember a case not very long ago which involved no less than five adjourned hearings. Counsel had to be briefed, and it seemed very unfair to the litigants that they should be brought to the court and that the case should be adjourned for the convenience of the lay magistrates. [An HON. MEMBER: "Paid magistrates."] In this case they were lay magistrates, and the case was adjourned five times in a matter which, had the court applied itself to it from the first time it sat until the time it rose, might have been disposed of in one day. My experience of the Provinces is invariably that when a case is commenced it is carried on until it is concluded, except in very exceptional circumstances. I am sure that provision should he made to avoid repeated adjournments, which take place particularly in Metropolitan police courts.
Then extended jurisdiction might well be given to county courts. This is certainly not a matter with which one can deal piecemeal, and I do not think that the extended jurisdiction proposed by the Bill is likely to be taken advantage of to any extent. In the first place, there is a very speedy procedure in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and so on. In the county court you have to pay a fee varying with the amount of the claim, whereas in the High Court you can issue a writ for £5,000 for a fee of 30s. If I desire to issue a summons in the county court for £50, it costs me £2 by way of fees to the court. Obviously those fees will have to be brought into some relation with one another before we confer extended jurisdiction on the county court. Perhaps here I am treading on delicate ground, but the question of costs in the county court ought to be looked into. It cannot reasonably be accepted that the fee for preparing a brief in a case involving

£50, which is at present £1 11s. 6d., is sufficient when such a case might well be brought in the High Court, when full and appropriate remuneration is paid. Obviously, £1 11s. 6d. cannot be sufficient in a great number of cases. All these matters ought to be taken into account before an extension of £100 in the jurisdiction of the county court is given.
I should like here to make a plea which I have made before in this House. You are now placing more important duties on County Court judges. Is it not possible for the Lord Chancellor when he makes appointments to the High Court occasionally to appoint well-qualified County Court judges? I believe that has been done only on one occasion, by Lord Birkenhead, but we all know that there are extremely capable County Court judges, well fitted to adorn the High Court bench. There may be men who at present hesitate perhaps to accept the offer of a County Court judgeship who would do so if they were assured that in the fullness of time they might succeed to the High Court bench. There are a number of minor points to which I should like to refer, but in general I certainly support the Bill. I hope it may be useful and that little by little we may get together such a body of law and practice that perhaps some form of consolidation Bill, such as we have had in so many other matters, can be presented to Parliament. If practice were unified it might result in such a system of law as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery envisaged. In the belief that this Bill is a step forward I have great pleasure in supporting it.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to add my meed of congratulation to my hon. and learned Friend on the presentation of this Measure, in which he showed that the simplification of the law could reflect itself fully in the simplification of his speech. But there is one point on which I should like to enter a caveat, and that is the question of the increase in the jurisdiction of the County Courts. In view of what the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) has said, it is right that I should inform the House that this matter has been before the General Council of the Bar, has been carefully considered by a sub-committee of the General Council and for that sub-committee I have the honour to speak to-night. We were immensely im-


pressed by the Majority Report of the Peel Commission. If the House would bear with me I should like to remind hon. Members of the way in which the majority put it, after careful consideration of all the evidence, which has been so eloquently referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies):
 In the main the general policy underlying the extension of jurisdiction seems to have been to provide a speedy, satisfactory and convenient mode of trial in actions and matters where litigants of comparatively small means are engaged. We have no doubt that the county courts have adequately achieved the object of this policy. They have done so by providing a means by which the litigant, with however small a claim, can ensure that claim being adjudicated upon by a trained lawyer of independence and experience. What is of equal importance, the judges of county courts, with full and proper realisation of their primary duties have consistently given priority of hearing to cases where the interests of small litigants are involved and where the points at issue (however important they may be to the litigants) are free from complexity and do not involve a protracted hearing. The continuance of this practice and the avoidance of anything that might hamper or interfere with it seems to us to be a matter of great public importance.
If I may say so, these sentiments found their echo in the sub-committee of the General Council of the Bar which considered these matters. Despite my hon. and learned Friend's remarks, it is not many years since I spent those happy days waiting in the county court, and I can well remember among the green hills of his native land waiting many a long day for an action under £100 being reached in a country court list—because in the country you cannot put apart a separate day for claims over £10. You may be in Ruthen on the last day of one week and in Llangefni on the first day of the next. You have to deal with every class of case, and there it is extremely difficult to avoid one of two faults. On the one hand, if you have too many larger cases these get put to the end of the list and are not reached; on the other hand, if the county court judge gets impressed by his larger cases he hurries over, or puts on one side, the smaller cases, which are of extreme importance to the persons concerned. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the House that the extension of jurisdiction of the county court should be made only when we are absolutely certain that the small cases of poor litigants will not suffer in any way. With great respect to the hon.

and learned Gentleman I suggest that his proposal of leaving it to the registrar, who is busy with the administrative details of the court, is not one which small litigants will find satisfactory.
With that in mind I think one can take the proposals of the present Bill as a reasonable compromise. As has been stated, it is estimated it will add some 750 cases in the year. That is some dozen cases for each County Court judge. That will not make any appreciable inroad into the time which should be given to the smaller cases which I have mentioned, and it will in certain cases provide a mode of trial which the parties desire. I, therefore, do suggest that this House in considering what seems superficially attractive, that is, allowing people to go to the cheaper courts, should remember the persons for whom these courts were primarily created when they were instituted.
With regard to the other portion of the Bill, which deals with criminal procedure, I rather join issue with those who would cut out the visits of the High Court judges to the various parts of the country. I cordially agree with my hon. and learned Friend when he suggests that they should visit the main centres of the country, but it is of vital importance, not only that local justice should be administered well, but that local people should see and be able to observe justice being administered in the best possible way in which it is administered in this country; and that opportunity is given by the visits of the judges to the various circuit towns. But a serious question is raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) when he says that this, almost for the first time, allows a class of court to choose and decide its own jurisdiction. That is something for which I myself had some difficulty in finding any precedent, and it does raise the question whether there ought to be compulsion in the way of having qualified chairmen, or whether there is some method by which that problem can be dealt with. I should like to put before the House for its consideration the two alternatives.
In the first place, I think we all agree that even the present work of quarter sessions ought to be done by qualified chairmen. I cannot imagine how anyone can sum up to a jury in a case of


false pretences or receiving stolen goods—matters which come up every day—unless they have had a legal training and have studied the case in the light of legal knowledge. It is sometimes a matter of very great difficulty even to those who have that training. I admit that in my own case, and I cannot see how it could be done without those advantages. Therefore we start with the assumption that legal chairmen are desirable.
As regards compulsion, there is this to be said on the other side. I think that some 48 out of 65 courts of quarter sessions already have legal chairmen, so that we should be dealing with, roughly speaking, about 20. Either we could deal with the matter in their case by compulsion, or we might deal with it in this way. County quarter sessions still have some administrative work. As the hon. Member opposite will realise, there is still the Standing Joint Committee, for example, where the quarter sessions join with the county council in dealing with police business. I can quite imagine the county quarter sessions saying, "We have a tradition of public service. We will be prepared to take this desirable course if we are given the choice of a chairman ourselves." There is a great deal to be said for that point of view, and, if it were permitted that the county quarter sessions should choose someone who would then be approved by the Lord Chancellor, it might be that compulsion would be entirely unnecessary because the whole of these 17 councils would at once elect legal chairmen.
Obviously, it is quite possible that there are adherents of both views, but, looking back at the work which county quarter sessions have done, I think that all of us who are professional lawyers, and especially those who, like myself, are paid salaries as Recorders, realise to the full the work that is done by so many people without payment at all, and we are quite prepared to give consideration to that point. I put this forward as a suggestion which might obviate the necessity for compulsion if quarter sessions were given the right to elect subject to approval by the Lord Chancellor.
With regard to the general position, I have, I am afraid, rather a distrust of generalities in schemes for the reform of something which deals with such a vast

amount of detail as the administration of justice. The main practical problems with which we are dealing here are the jurisdiction of the County Courts and quarter sessions, and the endeavour to clear away anomalies and archaic memorials of other times. In this we are doing a work of immense practical service. I think it is essential that we should attempt to see each of these problems steadily, to see it all, and to see these reforms in relation to the general administration of justice, as my hon. and learned Friend has done to-night in the closing words of his speech. If we can view these problems inductively and work on the practical problems that we know lie around all the fringes, and at the same time try to see how these work into the general problem, I think our administration of justice, of which I personally am intensely proud, will go to that greater strength which hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see it reach.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: So many eminent members of the legal profession have taken part in this Debate that it seems almost an act of impertinence for one who still only wears a stuff gown to say anything at all. The only qualification I have for doing so is that I think my experience of County Courts and quarter sessions, though no doubt very much less extensive, is probably more recent than that of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have already addressed the House. I think everyone must welcome, so far as it goes, the change that is to be made with regard to quarter sessions, because no one who has any experience of quarter sessions could fail to be struck by the disparity in the standard of justice that is administered as between one county and another. It frequently happens that someone of legal experience acts as chairman of quarter sessions, and in such cases the quarter sessions constitute an admirable tribunal, so that in most cases there is no need for any change at all so far as their constitution goes. But undoubtedly there are other counties which are not so fortunately placed, and where the administration of justice is not nearly so satisfactory. I think that quite a number of hon. Members who are members of the legal profession will share the views of the last speaker when they have heard a chairman without any legal qualifications en-


deavouring to sum up to a jury in a case of considerable technical difficulty. The hon. and learned Member referred to the number of counties which still lack qualified chairmen. Some figures were referred to in the report of the Peel Commission which I think are rather interesting. The commission say:
 The Hanworth Committee found that 32 out of 65 chairmen and 39 out of 57 deputy-chairmen, or a total of 75 out of 122, were legally qualified; according to the statistics with which we were furnished by Sir Ernest Hart, on behalf of the Society of Clerks of the Peace of Counties the corresponding figures are now 48 out of 67 and 55 out of 69, or a total of 103 out of 136.
That means that even at the present time, although the figures reveal some improvement, there are 33 chairmen and deputy-chairmen who preside over trials at quarter sessions and who have no legal qualification of any kind. But, even if we take the figures that are given of those with legal qualifications, they do not, of course, mean that they have legal qualifications in the sense of this Bill. It is further pointed out that some of them, although 'they may actually be members of one or other branch of the legal profession, have very little experience of the actual practice of the law.

Mr. Gallacher: They have human qualifications.

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Member had had a little more experience of quarter sessions, he might doubt that as well. Even with this Bill it may still be possible for people to be brought up at these tribunals, to be tried on very serious charges, and to be liable to be sent on very long terms of imprisonment, yet the person presiding over the trial may have no legal qualifications. In a country where we pride ourselves so much on our administration of criminal law, that will still be a glaring anomaly, and I hope it is not too late for the Law Officers to give attention to the hon. and learned Member who has just addressed the House and see whether it is not possible for every county to have a qualified chairman for its quarter sessions. Undoubtedly it will otherwise happen, as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said, that those counties, in particular, which are most in need of reforms will not avail themselves of the machinery provided under this Bill.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) put

forward a very eloquent plea in favour of extending the jurisdiction of county courts. He suggested that various other classes of action, such as libel and slander, should be brought within the scope of the courts. I am not so much impressed by the possibility of poor men's cases getting elbowed out, but I am rather more impressed by the other reason given by the Peel Commission, who referred, on page 68 of their report, to what sometimes happens to cases of length and difficulty when they are tried in the county courts:
 Cases of length and substance cannot as a rule be started until a great quantity of small work has been got through—frequently not until after the midday adjournment. If such a case is left unfinished at the end of the day it can seldom be resumed on the following day (owing to that day's quota of cases being already complete) and has to be left part-heard until a later date—a most unsatisfactory feature of any trial.
I think there are a good many members of the legal profession who can confirm that. If you go to county courts you may arrive at 10 o'clock, you find that the court does not sit until half-past 10, and then the judge has frequently 50, 60, or, as I have known, 75 judgment summonses in his list; and it frequently happens that cases which are third or fourth in the judgment list do not come on at all, and are part-heard. I heard recently of a case which it was necessary to adjourn when it had been part-heard, not until the next day, but for three weeks. That is a most unsatisfactory way of trying any case.
We should have inconvenience of that sort in a much greater degree if we were to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts greatly without altering the system of the county courts. What the hon. and learned Member has said has great force, but it must be joined with some alteration of the system. There is just as much need for more County Court judges as there is for more High Court judges. We have had a Commission on the despatch of business in the High Court. It is just as urgent that we should have a Commission on the despatch of business in the county court, because that affects a larger number of people.
I do not think anybody has referred as yet to Clause 12, which deals with the abolition of outlawry proceedings. There is not much to say about that. I only hope it will not have any effect on


the Bill we take at the commencement of each Parliamentary Session—the Bill for the more effectual preventing of Clandestine Outlawries. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol referred to other dead wood which he would like to cut away. He referred in particular to actions between the subject and the Crown. I listened to him with great interest when he said that. I see the hon. and learned Solicitor-General in his place. He may remember that last Session I addressed to him a question on the Crown Proceedings Bill, and asked whether it was his intention to introduce it in the present Parliament. He refused to say so then. I hope that he and the Attorney-General have reconsidered the matter, and that we may have a Measure which is very long overdue before the present Parliament comes to an end.

9.52 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis: May I call attention to one small point—not exactly a Commitee point, because it goes to the root of the Bill? In one quarter sessions, where I have the honour to be one of the deputy-chairmen—West Riding—we always sit with two courts, because it is necessary to do so. Therefore, under this Bill I fail to see how it is possible for a qualified deputy-chairman to be able to sit in the second court when a chairman is sitting in the first court. Under the Bill a deputy-chairman, if chosen, may sit, provided he is not a layman, in the absence of the chairman. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he will consider inserting in the Bill provision for the nomination of a panel of deputy-chairmen, so that at such a sitting as I have mentioned it will be possible for the chairman and deputy-chairman to sit at the same time in two courts.
It must be pointed out, too, that it is not sufficient to have one chairman and one depuy. It has happened on our own courts more than once that both the chairman and the senior deputy-chairman have been away together. It has been our practice for a panel of deputy-chairmen to be nominated every year to meet that situation. I suggest that the Act should provide for a panel of qualified deputychairmen—I do not wish for the quality in any way to be altered—so that in those cases the deputy-chairmen would be capable of acting, and would be qualified chairmen in every sense. I do not want

to go into the merits of the Bill to-night, because it is obviously a thing of shreds and patches, and it is all we are going to get, but we want to see that the shreds and patches shall be such that the Measure will work fairly all round.

9.55 p.m.

Mir. Silverman: I propose to confine what I have to say to Clause 16, which deals with the extension of jurisdiction of County Courts. I cannot help feeling that the Clause will be illusory in effecting the object for which it is designed, and that in practice it will not extend the jurisdiction to the County Courts at all. It has already been agreed that, although not voluntary in form, it is voluntary in practice. Unless both sides desire the case between £100 and £200 in bulk to be tried in the County Court, it will not be tried in the County Court. The mere application of the defendant, apparently at any stage of the proceedings, will be sufficient to take it from the County Court into the High Court. Although it is fair to add that the Clause provides for the making of rules by which the time for making such application may be limited, the Clause as it stands does not even suggest what that time shall be, and it may be at any stage.
One hopes that the rules will be so framed as to compel the defendant, if he wishes to exercise his option to object to the continued proceedings in the County Court, to do it promptly at the commencement of the action, say, within not more than seven days of the service of process upon him. It would be manifestly unfair to allow a plaintiff to incur all the costs of the case in the County Court right up to the day immediately preceding the trial, or possibly the day of trial itself, and then, at that stage, to allow the defendant to say, "Thus far and no further. Now the proceedings shall be transferred to the High Court and you must begin all over again." I am sure that that is not the intention, but even so, the rules are so limited to compel the defendant to make his selection very early, that it is his ipse dixit which will decide the question. In a case in which the defendant finds it inconvenient, or perhaps too convenient to the plaintiff, that the case shall proceed in the poor man's court where costs are somewhat less than in the High Court, he may,


merely by entering an objection and without advancing any cause or reason, bring this to an end.
I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the extension of the County Court jurisdiction is to go no further than that, there is very little reason why it should be in the Bill at all. In effect it will not alter the existing position at all. It was suggested earlier by the Attorney-General that it was intended to cover those cases where the parties were so much at arm's length that they could not even agree about the court which should settle their disputes. Those of us who have been in practice for any length of time know that we are often very awkward ourselves, and that even oftener our opponents are very awkward. I doubt very much whether the awkwardness extends as far as this, that the solicitors for the proposed plaintiffs write to the solicitors for the proposed defendant, and say, "Dear Sir, As we have failed to settle our difficulties in other ways, we now have instructions to commence proceedings, and in order to get an adequate, cheaper and speedier trial we propose to commence these proceedings in the County Court. So that we may do so with your consent, will you please let us know by return whether you consent or object."
I think that cases where that would occur would be so few and far between as hardly to justify or necessitate legislation to meet them. In other words, I am saying that there are no cases which, as a result of this legislation, may be tried in the County Court which may not be so tried without this legislation at all. If that is so, the claim that has been made, that the jurisdiction of the County Court should be extended, cannot be made out. I would like to see the whole question of the jurisdiction, scope and character of the County Courts thoroughly overhauled. I cannot see, and I am sure that very few people can see, any ground for treating them as inferior courts at all. The matters which they now have to try are of the very greatest importance to the litigants who go to the County Court with them. It may be that the amounts involved are often small, but the law involved is highly complicated. The Rent Restrictions Acts and the Workmen's Compensation Acts may be instanced as examples of the most highly technical Statutes we have upon the Statute Book, and they have given

rise to as much difficult litigation as any other Acts upon the Statute Book. The matter is at least as important to the litigant in the County Court as it is anywhere else.
I would like, therefore, to see County Courts made into courts of equal jurisdiction with the High Court and the scope of their jurisdiction much more widely extended than is even claimed to be achieved by this Clause. I would like to see the bench in the County Court so strengthened that the decision of a County Court judge should be as valid and as binding as the decision of the judge in the High Court. I do not agree with the suggestion that was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), when he said that he would like to see the way open for the promotion of County Court judges to the High Court bench. Why? I want to keep really good County Court judges in the County Court and not to have the County Court bench regarded as the last refuge of the second best or the last hope of a barrister whose success at the Bar or in other directions has not been quite what he wanted or hoped it would be. I certainly grant the implication behind what my hon. and gallant Friend said, that the future career of the County Court judge ought to be so safeguarded as to satisfy the legitimate ambition of first-rate men, but that ought to be done otherwise than by transferring them to an atmosphere where their skill and power are lost to those who need them at least as much as, and perhaps more than, litigants in the High Court.
I did on another occasion support what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) said about the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts in divorce cases, and although I do not want to deal with that matter now, I still think that his view is the right view. The whole question of costs ought to be reviewed in the sense of making justice more accessible to those who can least afford the high cost of litigation even in the County Court. I should like to see an end to the system which gives the solicitor greater costs for doing less work. In the County Court the solicitor has the right of audience, but he seldom exercises it because in the main he gets very much less out of it than if he prepares


a brief, for, it may be, some experienced or inexperienced junior counsel. The solicitor gets a much higher fee for preparing a case for that junior counsel than he would get if he pleaded the case himself. While that premium exists it is inevitable that the profession will avail themselves of it. I think the whole system of costs in all the courts, particularly in the County Court, should be reviewed and revised. With all these alterations, amendments and so-called reforms, you are not going to achieve the main purpose that you have in view, namely, the making of justice more accessible to the poor people, unless you are prepared to deal with the question of costs in a fundamental way.
In dealing with all these matters we ought to proceed with due caution, slowly, step by step, but when I look at some of the matters which are repealed by Clause 4 of the Bill I think the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Mr. Fyfe) would be slow to claim that reform had been over-hasty. Some of them go back at least 400 years. In one small instance even Magna Charta is altered. Certainly a number of the other provisions have been dead wood for a long time. The complaint of those who would like to see the administration of justice made quicker and more efficient is not that we have gone too quickly or that we are going to quickly in this Bill but that we have been too timid, and that the vested interests that stand in the way are still too great to permit of effective and fundamental reform. I hope that that condition of things will not continue long and that opportunity will be taken to have a complete overhaul, and that we are not far removed from the time when a comprehensive scheme will be brought forward as a result of which the administration of justice will become a simply operated and efficient instrument, equally available to all, whether they be rich or poor.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Alan Herbert: Into this nest of King's Counsellors and professional lawyers I hesitate to thrust my head. I should, however, have liked to have made some small contribution on the question of costs, had it not been so ably dealt with by the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie (Mr. Silverman) and others. I was very

much interested in the high praise of Clause 1 by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). It reminded me of a statement made by the late Lord Darling—I hope I can quote it correctly—who, when he was asked to what he attributed his success in the law, said that he attributed it to his early days when he practised before quarter sessions and learned the law of the land from those who administered the one by virtue of their owning the other. I am glad that that condition of things is to be removed. I was also interested in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), particularly when he spoke about assimilating procedure in the case of actions against the Crown to procedure in the case of actions between one private party and another. I have often wondered what would happen if all industry were to be nationalised and come under the Crown, which would mean that everybody, whether journalists or laundrymen, solicitors or otherwise, would become servants of the Crown. Therefore almost all legal actions would be actions against the Crown. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member has anticipated and met the difficulty.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) referred to Clause 12, and I wish he had dealt with it more exhaustively. That Clause refers to the Fourth Schedule in which two of the few remaining words of Magna Charta are to be repealed. There remained only about 35 words of Magna Charta, and I am sorry to see that they are to be reduced to 33. The remaining Sections of Magna Charta—I speak from memory—are three. One says that no man shall be tried except before his peers by process of law, whereas we all know that nowadays he is nearly always tried by the Milk Marketing Board, or a secret committee of his club, or a court of summary jurisdiction. The second Section which survives says that all debts owing to the Crown shall have precedence of others. The third Section deals with costs, and there is a famous clause which says that no man shall sell, deny or delay justice of right. As hon. Members, however, have pointed out, that although we may not sell justice in the sense that justice can be corrupted or denied for money, there is no doubt that we do sell justice, and sell it very dearly.
On the whole, I agree that this is an admirable Bill, and I only wish formally to express regret that it does not contain certain things that I should like to have seen in it. I wish to mention two points arising under the administration of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which Parliament passed last year. I should not be so presumptuous or foolish as to raise any controversial point on that legislation in the absence of those who opposed that Act—though I see there are two of them present—but I am still receiving heartrending correspondence from those people who had high hopes from the passage of that Act, and who complain that in certain respects the intentions of Parliament are not being carried out.
The first point is with regard to the provision which gives a right to sue for a dissolution of marriage where the respondent has been of unsound mind for five years. During the debates in Committee we heard a great deal from doctors about their possibility, or doubtfulness, of a doctor being able to say in every case that a person was incurably insane, but now the British Medical Association in a recent report have raised two new points. In the "British Medical Journal" it is said:
 The Council has considered the ethical position of the medical man in charge of an insane patient … when approached for an opinion by a prospective petitioner, and the legal position of the medical man in the event of a patient whom he has stated to be incurably of unsound mind subsequently recovering. The Council is advised that any opinion expressed by the medical practitioner as to the patient being of unsound mind would not be covered by the protection given under the Mental Treatment Act or the Lunacy Act; that the safest course would be for the practitioner to decline to express any opinion save by the direction of the court, but that he might place his records of the case at the disposal of an independent medical expert nominated by the petitioner. As regards the ethical aspect of the problem, the Council considers that the medical man responsible for the care of the patient would not be justified in giving an opinion except at the express direction of the court. The adoption of this attitude would, however, make the Act unworkable, and the Council feels that the most satisfactory way out of the difficulty would be the introduction of amending legislation.
I will not go further with that matter. I am not endeavouring at all to raise any controversial point. I am merely suggesting that it may be that the intentions of the Act are not being carried out, and if there is any way by which this matter can be put right I should be glad. The

other point is that there are many cases—. I have had thousands of cases—in which the husband or wife has been deserted and when the case comes before the court they find that through the fault of the magistrate some years ago—not through any fault of this House—who quite unnecessarily and wrongly inserted in the separation order what is called a non-cohabitation clause, they are not entitled to divorce. It is a very technical matter which was much discussed during the passage of the Bill, though not very much in this House. The reason I am mentioning it now is that a great many accusations are being made that this House allowed this matter to slip our notice. I can assure the House that it was discussed by the many hon. and learned Members who were responsible for the preparation of the Bill, and that it did not miss their attention. I never quite understood the discussions, but my hon. and learned Friends will remember them. This is the only opportunity one has for raising these matters, and rather diffidently I suggest to my hon. and learned Friends, not that they should make an answer to the question now, but that they should consider it.
The third point which has been raised to-night is about the costs of justice, an extraordinary phrase when one comes to think of it, especially when one recollects the passage in Magna Charta:
 To no man will we sell, to no man deny, to no man delay justice or right.
I would not venture to intervene on the delicate question of the fees and rewards of learned solicitors and barristers who, after all, are entitled, like the rest of us, to fair remuneration for their arduous labours. It would be very easy to read out a solicitor's bill of costs and raise a good many laughs, but far be it from me to do any such thing. But the costs of solicitors and the fees of barristers are not the only costs of justice. There are some strange things called court fees, that is to say, the charges made by the Crown for permission to enter the courts of the Crown and obtain justice. I looked up a few before coming into the House. There are: Affidavits, each filing, 2s. 6d.; each swearing 2s. 6d.; alimony (application for appointment, each hour or part thereof) 10s. There is then a very remarkable charge—hearing of trial of cause, first five hours £2, each additional complete hour, 10s. That seems to be


a very queer provision. Surely, the fee for justice should be like the fee for postage; that is to say, one should pay the same fee, however long the journey may be. Other charges are: Questions for jury, 10s.; settling questions for jury, 10s.; resettling questions for jury, 10s.; appeal to Court of Appeal, filing notice and entering, £7; notice of entering, £3; and so on. I understand that the court fees in a small action, the costs of which may be £75, may amount to £10 or £12. A very large proportion. Although such costs may not fall very heavily on richer litigants, they may be very heavy upon a poor man. Under Section 99 of the Judicature Act, 1935—and I would remind hon. Members that one of the purposes of this Bill is to amend that Act—the rules of court may be made for regulating any matters relating to costs agreed to by the High Court. But, as usual, the Treasury has a cautious word, and by Sub-section (2), no rule of the Supreme Court which may involve an increase of expenditure out of public funds, shall be made except with the concurrence of the Treasury.
Therefore, my hon. arid learned Friends are entitled to say that it is no good speaking about the Rules Committee because the Treasury will step in. I simply express the hope that it may now be possible, I do not say to look into the question of the rewards of barristers and solicitors, but to look into the question of court fees. It occurs to me that it might be possible to effect a reduction in the court fees in the case of persons with an income of, say, under £500 a year. That, after all, would only be an extension of a principle which we have already in the case of poor persons' litigation, a subject on which I would now like to say a few halting words. The poor persons' arrangements are a matter on which the House and the country are entitled to feel a very high degree of pride.
I am glad of this opportunity to render some tribute to that organisation of which I have heard a great deal in the last few months. Not even those who benefit from it realise what an admirable service it is. Solicitors and barristers give their services free and sometimes obtain the services of the highest counsel —men of the calibre of my hon. and learned Friend opposite—for nothing.

Even the clients who benefit do not realise that they are getting these advantages for nothing. Very often the lawyers engaged receive more abuse than gratitude, but that is the way of life everywhere. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how fine that organisation is and we ought all to render thanks for it, but it applies only to a certain limited class of citizens. I do not think it is realised how poor a person must be before he can take advantage of the poor persons organisation. He must have an income of not more than £2 a week or, in special cases, £4 a week—I do not understand what the special cases are—and he must not possess more than £50 or, in special cases, £100. But above those limits, there must be many people who cannot, owing to lack of funds, bring their cases into court.
I know how many thousands have applied as poor persons under the Act to which I have referred and I am led to believe that there may be many thousands more, just above the limits I have mentioned and still unable to bring their cases to the courts. What the remedy is, it is not for me to suggest. It would be easy to make a suggestion to "raise the figures," but that would be hardly fair, because the lawyers are entitled to earn their bread like the rest of us. But there is one small practical remedy which has already been suggested in the admirable speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). That is to alter the rule concerning the hearing of divorce petitions at Assizes. I gather that the chief reason for the present arrangement is the ancient idea that divorce was a kind of sacred myth which could only be administered by high priests in the capital of the country. I know it is a difficult branch of the law, but I do not believe that it is as difficult as all that. It may be that behind the cheering announcement of the Attorney-General about the appointment of new judges, there lies, although he did not reveal it, some truth or forthcoming truth which will satisfy my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery and myself. I hope that is so and I will say no more about it.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend with whom I have had such happy associations in the past will not think me presumptuous for putting forward these


few points, and that no hon. Member will think that I am trying to raise any new controversial question concerning the Matrimonial Causes Act. Believe me, I have had quite enough of that. But I do feel some responsibility to press, in whatever way I can, the suggestion that the Act to which I refer, having been passed, should, as far as possible, be made to have the effect intended by Parliament. So far, I believe that is so. As for the question of the cost of justice, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will listen not to what I have said, but to what has been said by far more serious and learned gentlemen. It is a mockery for Parliament to confer new rights upon the citizens and then to stand idly by, and see them denied those rights simply because they have not the necessary funds.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I apologise for intervening in this discussion between lawyers, because even the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) reminded us two years ago that he had taken a degree in jurisprudence at Oxford, and though he sometimes pretends to be an innocent layman wandering in the legal jungle, it is clear to those of us who have followed the book that he wrote—I think it was called "Misleading Cases "—that he has a very considerable knowledge of the intricacies of the law. I approach this matter as a layman, and after listening to the wonderful praise that lawyers have been showering to-night upon their own profession and the way in which it works, I am more than ever convinced of the truth of the saying of Douglas Jerrold's that self-defence is the best of all laws, and for this reason it is the only one the lawyers did not invent. I do not feel to-night that there is any need to feel at all excited about or satisfied with this Measure. I merely want to deal with the one Clause of it with which I have made in the past fairly frequent acquaintance, and that is the Clause dealing with the chairmanship of quarter sessions.
The first chairman of quarter sessions with whom I sat had been a judge in one of His Majesty's Dominions, and immediately after lunch I noticed that the clerk of the peace had built up a very high tower of books. Half an hour later he knocked them over, and the chairman leaned over and said, "I was not asleep

that time; I had merely closed my eyes." There is nothing in this Clause which ensures that in the courts of quarter sessions, which now have extended powers conferred upon them by recent legislation, a justice shall be able to hear even the police, except when they speak in a loud tone of voice. There is no power to remove such a person, and anyone who has tried to remove a chairman of quarter sessions knows how difficult it is, how, once an appointment is made, it appears to have been made for life. I would have hoped that this opportunity should have been taken of ensuring that this very high and responsible office should be held, even in those cases where the person is not legally qualified, by someone who is at least physically qualified for the post, because there is nothing worse for the administration of justice in this country than for litigants to go away feeling that their case has not been heard and being convinced by some questions that have been put, after learned counsel on both sides have finished and the chairman of the bench has taken a hand, that the chairman has been unable to follow the proceedings in a way that has convinced them that their full case has been heard by the person who will have a very considerable influence in settling it.
I regret that this Clause is not made compulsory. The hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Fyfe) made the suggestion, which seemed to me quite a good one to put in front of the courts of quarter sessions, that they should be allowed to nominate a chairman and a deputy-chairman, but that before such a person could act, he should receive the approval of the Crown in the way indicated in this Clause; and until that is enacted, even where you get chairmen who are, technically, legally qualified, you will still have a large number of those people who have taken a law degree at one of the old universities, have been called to the Bar, and have never even attempted to practise. I do not regard such a person as that, even though he may be over 80 years of age, as having acquired a sufficient amount of legal experience to entitle him to be regarded as a legally qualified chairman of quarter sessions. I hope, therefore, that at a very early date, if it cannot be done in this Bill, the appointment of a really legally qualified chairman will be made


mandatory upon quarter sessions. I regret, also, that no attempt is made in this Bill to impose a limit on the number of justices sitting at quarter sessions. My experience is that on the first day there is a very large number of people in attendance. Generally the junior justices secure the seats because they are more athletically qualified, and the senior justices stand at the rear until such time as some of the junior justices have gone off to the city.
In recent years a limitation has been imposed on the number of justices who may sit on appeals heard at quarter sessions. There was a time when it was said that the London Quarter Sessions heard appeals from the Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates by public meeting because so many of them were in attendance. Now I believe, the number is limited to not less than five and not more than seven. The Rating Appeals Committee also consists of a fixed number, and a continuous body of decisions can be built up by such a committee. That makes the task of going in front of it far less of a gamble than it used to be. I suggest that the time has come when some limit should be placed on the number of justices who should be allowed to sit at quarter sessions in any one court for the transaction of business. I do not think it is a good thing that a case should be heard by 5o or 60 people. It is impossible, even in the simplest case, to collect the opinion of the court without retiring. The limitation of the number to something like II as a maximum would be a good thing and would assist in the administration of justice and in convincing people that justice is really being done. I know the difficulties that there are at the moment in persuading courts of quarter sessions that they ought to adopt the principle of having a legally qualified and paid chairman. I think that in the more populous counties it will be impossible in future to get persons of sufficient experience unless they are paid. I, therefore, hope that at an early date provision will be made, if possible in this Bill, whereby the court of quarter sessions shall be compelled to have a legally qualified chairman and that, where it is necessary, arrangements shall be made to pay him an adequate salary.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Lyons: I wish to express my agreement with this Bill, which, I think, will

go a long way to remove some of the difficulties that exist in our system of justice. I would ask the House to consider what the result of Clause i will be. The point was first made by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and was taken up by a number of speakers who followed him, that this Clause merely empowers a court of quarter sessions, if it so desires, to apply to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of a chairman or deputy-chairman possessing certain legal qualifications. I would ask those responsible for this Bill to consider whether it is not possible to lay upon all quarter sessions the duty of making an application to the Lord Chancellor for a properly qualified chairman to be put in charge of the proceedings. As things stand it may well be that some counties in which justice is not, perhaps, too well administered will decide deliberately not to approach the Lord Chancellor, but to carry on with a chairman who is without legal qualifications. The Clause gives only a right to apply for a skilled chairman.
There is one thing above all others which, I believe, all sections in this House will join in proclaiming, and that is that the most friendless, the most humble or the most lonely in this country should have a right to the same standard of justice in our courts. Instead, there may be counties which will retain a kind of second-grade standard of justice. Many of us have watched for years the kind of justice which is sometimes meted out in courts of quarter sessions where there is no chairman with legal qualifications. That state of affairs may well be perpetuated by this Bill if it does not become the duty of every county to ask for a properly qualified chairman. In some counties there is to be found somebody well qualified to administer justice as chairman of quarter sessions, but one could name county after county where the administration of justice at quarter sessions has been an object of criticism time and time again. A system under which we get only a third-rate kind of justice may be continued under the permissive provisions of Clause 1. That was the point made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he spoke about the county with which he is so much acquainted—that there is nothing in this Measure requiring such an application to be made.
I hope that before this Bill is finished with the duty of dispensing the best justice which we can give will be imposed upon every county in the land. There is nothing to prevent any court of quarter sessions deliberately refraining from making an application, deliberately continuing a system which may be quite bad. An unqualified chairman may be open to the greatest criticism, but it will be possible for the system which has led to his appointment to go on, in that way continuing what, I think, I heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol refer to as a second-standard of justice, which is the one thing above all others we want to avoid. I see no reason why any person should have to suffer the misfortune of being tried in a county where a second quality of justice is being administered. The same standard in all counties should be the right of every man. If the present state of affairs is remedied, it will be at the request of all sections in this House, because there is no one who wants to see any person suffering, purely by chance, from a second-rate standard of justice. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will say that he is ready to consider these representations to stop something which, I am sure, nobody can justify, and that is that there should remain some counties in which a man will get a standard of justice lower than that to which he is entitled.
I welcome the extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts. I listened with very great interest to the speech that was made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), as one does whenever he addresses the House on this subject, and with great respect for the views which he holds. There can be no reason why the success which attends the County Court to-day should not continue under this extended jurisdiction. I see no reason why we should stick to a limit which is entirely out of date for the county courts. County Court judges have to administer matters of law involving that which is of great consequence to the litigants. The step that is being taken is a little tardy and overdue, but will be none the less welcome because it extends to county courts jurisdiction which might be the means of bringing speedier justice to many more people.
It is said that this is a patchy Bill which does not go as far as many of us would like. I confess I should have liked to have seen speedier justice in criminal cases and more courts established so that no one should have to wait for criminal justice, which should be speedy and ready, and must be cheap. We could do a lot more to bring about these three aims, which I believe are supported by Members in all sections of the House. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. When it is in operation I hope that many of the inequalities which have been spoken about to-day will be ironed out. I hope that the matter to which I have referred, the omission of Clause 1, will be altered between the time when the Bill leaves us and when we see it again in a more advanced form.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Benson: Two hon. Members who have addressed the House apologised for doing so, but I make no apology at all. If barristers and lawyers fail to protect our liberties it falls to a lay member to do so. I want to carry a little further a reference to Magna Charta which was made by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert). I think it was when the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) was speaking that either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General interjected that the Bill abolished outlawry. As a matter of fact, the Bill does nothing of the kind. It does not abolish outlawry. The only effect it has is to abolish the safeguards relating to outlawry which have been established for seven or eight centuries. Clause 12 declares:
 Outlawry proceedings … are hereby abolished,
and when we turn to the Fourth Schedule, we find, under the heading, "Extent of Repeal "the words, relating to Magna Charta:
 outlawed, or.
Apparently we are getting rid of outlawry, but if we read Magna Charta, or what is left of it, we find that the effect of this Bill is the very opposite. Perhaps I might read from Magna Charta:
 No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor we will not pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.


That is the relevant passage. I ask hon. Members to notice that this says outlawry shall not be imposed on any man save by the judgment of his peers, and the law of the land, but by the Schedule we propose to take out outlawry from that particular safeguard. If the Attorney-General has his way this will then read: "No freeman shall be imprisoned save by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land," but outlawry has no such safeguard.

The Attorney-General: These words only mean that as outlawry has been abolished altogether, therefore the proceedings have been abolished.

Mr. Benson: The effect of the Schedule and of Clause 12 is to remove all the safeguards and to bring us to the status quo ante Magna Charta; in other words we revert to the Prerogative. If you had abolished outlawry proceedings under Clause 12 and left the safeguard against outlawry then we should have got complete protection, because no proceedings could be taken and no outlawry can be pronounced save by proceedings, but by taking away the legal proceedings and removing the safeguards we are brought back to the pre-Magna Charta state and the Royal Prerogative will remain. I would have accepted this Bill on its face value and on the explanation of the Attorney-General had I not had a profound and well-grounded suspicion of this Government after the way they have been hobnobbing with Franco and the Dictators. We have found that the main weapon of these various dictators against trade unionists, Socialists and Jews is what in effect is outlawry. Naturally I become very suspicious. The hon. Member for Dundee asked what would be the effect of this Bill upon the Bill which is invariably introduced at the beginning of each Parliament to suppress clandestine outlawry. For 200 years that Bill has been moved at the beginning of the Parliament to reinforce the safeguards of Magna Charta which it is now proposed to remove. Actually that Bill has been debated. It was debated by Mr. Sheridan, who was a great defender of liberty, and I can see that before very long we of the Opposition will have to force a Debate on the Outlawry Bill at the beginning of Parliament. I would just like to protest against the words of the hon. Member for

West Derby (Mr. Fyfe), who referred to this immemorial safeguard as an archaic memorial of other times. As the hon. Member for Oxford University said, our liberties are being steadily whittled away, and I think it is time we protested in order to preserve what little of those liberties remains.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I should like to ask a question before the Solicitor-General replies to the Debate. I must apologise for the fact that I know nothing at all about the law. I was taught, from my youth up, to have as little to do with it as possible, in order to keep out of trouble. But on several occasions individuals have come to me who have been in difficulties, not because of their having to go before the courts, but because they have been called upon to sit as jurors at different places, and because of the fact that they have been unable to afford the time off. I would like to ask whether it would be possible to include in this Bill a provision which would enable an individual who is not in a position to find the money to attend at quarter sessions or assizes, or wherever he is called upon to go, and when he has no alternative but to go when the summons comes, whereby he could, in helping to administer justice, at least receive payment for the time he is compelled to put in and the difficulties under which he is placed in carrying out his duty. If that could be done in this Bill, it would relieve some people that I have come across during the last few years who have been called upon to undertake these tasks.

10.57 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): At this late hour I hope the House will forgive me if I confine my remarks to answering some of the points that have been raised in the course of the Debate. Certainly no layman need apologise to a lawyer for interposing his views in a Debate on legal matters. We get very depressed at continually hearing the voices of those in our own profession, and no lawyer would ever be heard to complain about the irrigating channels of lay opinion, which can only be beneficial to practitioners of the law. For that reason I was very glad to hear the intervention of, among others, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He made some very interesting points, which were also raised by a good many other Members.
One of the main points that have emerged in the Debate is the question of making compulsory the appointment of legally qualified chairmen of quarter sessions. Of course, one has a good deal of sympathy with a suggestion of that kind, but as the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) pointed out, this Bill is already in many respects quite revolutionary, and we must recognise that, in requiring that there should be legal qualifications at all, it is doing something which at the present moment is quite novel. It is perfectly true that it is not applying this revolutionary principle in the case of every county, but the Peel Commission pointed out that there has already in recent years been a considerable improvement. The figures have been read out showing that, whereas when the Hanworth Committee reported only 32 out of 65 chairmen and 39 out of 57 deputy-chairmen, or a total of 71 out of 122, were legally qualified, the then latest figures, in 1936, they were 48 out of 67 and 55 out of 69 or a total of 103 out of 136. Therefore, even in that small passage of time, there has been an improvement, and it is possible, at any rate, that counties will not desire to be in the embarrassing position of finding their quarter sessions next door to those of another county which have a fuller jurisdiction accorded to them owing to the appointment of a fully qualified chairman under this Bill. The hon. Member for South Shields was not quite accurate when he said that the Bill provided no control over the continuance in office now of chairmen and deputy-chairmen of quarter sessions. If he will look at Sub-section 3 of Clause 1, he will see that the appointment of a chairman or deputy-chairman shall be
 for such term as may be specified in his appointment…

Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman has left out the words "under this section." It is true that that would apply to the people appointed under this Section; but it would not apply to those not appointed under this Section. It would have to be stated in express terms that physical health shall be part of the requirements under this Section.

The Solicitor-General: All I am saying is that there is, at any rate, a good deal more power than exists at present, because those who will be appointed under

the Section will be appointed on certain terms which will be embodied in the terms of their appointment.

Mr. Ede: I read the Section to say, "for such term," and not "on such terms." I take it "for such term" relates to a term of years—retirement at the age of 65, for instance.

The Solicitor-General: I did not say anything to the contrary, nor did I suggest that there is anything in the Bill which provides that you must remove the chairman from the Bench if he falls asleep behind books. What I say is that the Bill provides more control than there is at the present time. That is all. If at some time it became necessary to catalogue the physical defects which would necessitate removal it could be done in the Schedule to another Bill, but we hope that that will not be necessary.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made a very interesting contribution to the Debate. He supported in the main what is being done in the Bill, and, like a great many other speakers, complained more about what was being left undone than what was being done. He raised at least one point of very substantial importance. That was the question of whether poor persons would in future be excluded from the poor persons' procedure by being redirected to the county court, which is now being clothed with greater authority than previously. I am certain I can give him an undertaking that Clause 5 is not to be used to deprive poor persons of assistance in cases in which they would receive assistance at the present time. Steps will be taken to bring home what I have just said to poor persons' committees throughout the country.
I will not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he will forgive me, into the wider areas of his remarks, justifiable though they are in any Debate dealing with the administration of justice, as to the general administration of the criminal law in the counties. This Bill has comparatively modest scope. It is really designed to carry out the main recommendations of the Royal Commission which has been referred to as the Peel Commission. The opportunity has been seized to do a number of minor tidyings up which justify the title of Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, but there is no pretence


that what we are attempting to do is to effect a fundamental overhaul of the civil and judicial legal system of the country.
Words of great wisdom were spoken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds, who, in close contact with the law, pointed out how in recent years, by a series of Acts of this kind, we are effecting a very real and radical revolution in the administration of justice in this country. I do not suppose that you could point to any comparable period in the history of English law when, so far as the administration of the law was concerned, a more comprehensive series of enactments had been passed than have been passed within the last 10 years. The Judicature Act was to a very large extent aimed at one particular element in the administration of justice, and if you took the aggregate of the Acts which have been passed in consequence of the recommendation of the Law Revision Committee, the Peel Committee, the Hanworth Committee, and the various rules which passed silently into operation, it would show that there have been changes of a really fundamental and revolutionary character in the structure of the machine which has to work justice.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) made reference to the Welsh case which caused a great deal of comment and excitement at the time. I hope that he will not object if I remind him—indeed I think he intended to remind the House—that there was no other course open to my hon. and learned Friend in that case than the course he took. It is important that that fact should be realised in quarters where political capital is sought to be made out of that decision. We have taken advantage of the present Bill, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, to make it possible in future to adopt much less cumbersome procedure and to send cases of that kind back to assizes in the ordinary way.

Mr. C. Davies: I thought that I had made it quite clear that when the Attorney-General tendered that advice it was the only advice that could be given, and the first opportunity he gets to put it right he does so.

The Solicitor-General: I agree that that is what my hon. and learned Friend had

in mind. I do not wish tediously at this hour to cover the whole of the long controversy as to whether the time is ripe to extend very considerably the jurisdiction of the County Court. That matter was fully examined by the Peel Commission, and we are carrying out the main recommendations that were made by that commission. There are two points in connection with it that ought to be noted. My hon. and learned Friend was not, I think, strictly accurate when he said that, under the provisions of Clause 16, the defendant could at any stage object to the trial of the action for the larger amount by the County Court. It is provided that there shall be rules of the County Court prescribing, among other things, the period within which the defendant can, so to speak, opt out of the County Court. Normally, the rules would prescribe a period of eight days, which is the period given for a corresponding option in another connection.
Partly for this reason I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) who thought that this provision would leave matters very much as they are at the present time. I do not remember that being the argument that was adopted during the passage of the Trades Disputes Act, when there was a great deal of energy and eloquence devoted to pointing out the sharp distinction between opting in and opting out, contracting in and contracting out. There is all the difference in the world between the existing position and the position that is proposed. The proposal is that the plaintiff may start his proceedings in the County Court but if the defendant does not like it he will have a limited period of time within which to have the case removed to the High Court. There is a very considerable difference between that and not giving any change of jurisdiction except by agreement. The Peel Commission attached a great deal of importance to that difference, and I imagine that it is a distinction with a real difference.

Mr. Silverman: My point was this: Will it not be the duty of the prudent solicitor acting for the plaintiff—having regard to the fact that the defendant merely by giving notice of objection will be able to remove the case to the High Court—to find out before he incurs


the expense of starting the case, whether the defendant proposes to exercise the right or not? If so, if it will be the act of a prudent man to find out before he enters the case in the County Court, whether the defendant is going to agree, are you not in the same position as now, because you can ascertain that now?

The Solicitor-General: Very often the prudent man will not seek to find out too much before he starts, but will take his chance. It may be that in many cases where he seeks to have his case disposed of in the county court, and he does not know whether the other side will consent to that jurisdiction, he will take the comparatively small risk of going to the county court, and risk the case being removed to the more expensive jurisdiction. The Peel Commission thought that this provision will result in more cases of a higher amount being brought in the county court than the existing rules allow. This is not the last Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that will be seen in this generation.
The hon. Member for Eccleshall (Sir G. Ellis) referred to a panel of deputy-chairmen being set up. It is intended that quarter sessions should have power to apply to the Lord Chancellor and that the Lord Chancellor should appoint more than one deputy-chairman. The hon. Member will realise that the temporary position is provided for by Sub-section (4) of Clause 2, under which if there is no qualified deputy-chairman available one can be nominated by the qualified chairman provided he is such a person as is approved by the Lord Chancellor.

Sir G. Ellis: In some cases two courts are always sitting.

The Solicitor-General: We think that he has the power already, and it is intended that quarter sessions should have the power to apply to the Lord Chancellor and for the Lord Chancellor to appoint more than one. If the point is not covered the matter will be looked into, because it is really a Committee point.
Finally, there was the welcome interest shown in Magna Charta by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). It is only an indication of the difficulties which lie in the way of law reformers, who must pay attention to even the most ancient of our statutes. The point was completely answered by my hon. and

learned Friend the Attorney-General. There is no question that by the Bill proceedings of outlawry are being abolished. The Act to which the hon. Member referred deals with matters so far as they concern outlawry, which are no more than proceedings of outlawries, and since you have abolished the proceedings surely there can be no ground for keeping in the reference to outlawry which remains in Magna Charta.
Those were the main points raised in the Debate. The Government certainly cannot complain of the reception that has been accorded to the Bill, and we hope that the House will recognise that it is a serious attempt to loosen and lubricate the wheels of the administration of justice and advance yet another mile on the road to progress.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman express an opinion as to whether something can be done in the case of jurors who find it difficult, on account of their poverty, to carry out their duties?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point which is really outside the scope of the Bill. The extent of expense and inconvenience to which people are put in order to discharge their duties as good citizens is one that constantly preoccupies everybody. I do not think that within the limits of this Bill I can give any assurance on the matter, but for the present it must remain one of the burdens on people of discharging their duty as citizens.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

EIRE (CONFIRMATION OF AGREE MENTS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
 That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm and give effect to certain agreements as to the relations between the United Kingdom and Eire, it is expedient to authorize—
(1) the payment into the Exchequer of the sum of ten million pounds payable by the Government of Eire in pursuance of any such agreement;
(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—



(a) to the National Debt Commissioners, of a sum equal to the aggregate of all sums lent by them to the Treasury under Sub-section (2) of Section four of the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, and not repaid before the commencement of the said Act of the present Session, together with interest due thereon up to the date of payment;
(b) to the National Debt Commissioners, of the sum of three million seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds, to be accepted by them in final settlement of all claims under Section four of the Public Works Loans Act, 1927, against the Government of Eire in respect of local loans;
(c) for the purpose of its being applied in redeeming or paying off debt, of a sum equal to the amount by which the said sum of ten million pounds exceeds the aggregate of the sums mentioned in the last two foregoing paragraphs;
(d) into the Irish Land Purchase fund or account or other appropriate fund or account, of such sums as the National Debt Commissioners may certify to be necessary for defraying all payments specified by the said Act of the present Session which, on or after the date on which the said sum of ten million pounds is paid into the Exchequer, become payable out of that fund or account in respect of land situate in Eire."

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [5TH MAY.]

Resolution reported,

DUTIES OF CUSTOMS ON EGGS OR POULTRY FROM EIRE.
 That, in the event of the Government of the United Kingdom becoming entitled, in accordance with any agreement made between that Government and the Government of Eire, to impose duties on eggs or poultry from Eire, duties of customs on eggs or poultry imported from Eire or exported from Eire to any other country and thence brought into the United Kingdom may be imposed, varied and revoked by order of the Treasury.

Resolution agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PIG IRON.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel C. Kerr.]

11.23 p.m.

Mr. A. Edwards: I wish to raise a matter of grave importance. Last week I put a question to the Parliamentary

Secretary to the Board of Trade concerning the damping down of blast furnaces on the North-East Coast. The reply I received was very unsatisfactory, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the President of the Board of Trade could not see his way to give any Government assistance. Committed as we are to a tremendous rearmament scheme the House ought to realise the grievous nature of this neglect on the part of the Government, for since 1st February last year 22 blast furnaces have been damped down. Blast furnaces are not very easily lighted once they are damped down.
A year ago there was such a shortage of pig iron in this country that it had to be rationed to customers. I was going to America, and in order to be quite sure that I had sufficient stocks until I came back, I wanted to buy 1,000 tons of pig iron; but not a company in this country could sell me one ton, and I had to buy 1,000 tons of iron at a premium of 25s. a ton, in order to be sure. Yet, between July and December, such a vast change came about that blast furnaces are being closed down at a terrific rate. In my constituency this week, 400 more men will be put out of work, and I have received a message that two other blast furnaces will be put out this week. Will the House try to visualise what will be the position if we do get into a war? If we have to use ships to bring iron ore to this country, and if they have to be convoyed, as they were during the last war, it is easy to see what the position will be. Yet to-day we are deliberately damping down blast furnaces, instead of building up a store of pig iron which might be invaluable to us in the near future should we get into war. It is sheer suicide, and no potential enemy could do more damage to this country than the Government are doing by neglecting this great problem. It is inconceivable to think of a greater disservice to this nation. If we are in the danger that we are told we are in, no greater disservice could be done than that which is being done to-day by the people who sit on the benches opposite and who profess to be patriotic. I only say that, in order to emphasise the seriousness of the case, and I want to appeal to the right hong Gentleman to compel the Prime Minister to give his personal attention to this matter. In his answer last week the Parliamentary Secretary said:


 My right hon. Friend cannot see his way to adopt the suggestion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1938; col. 673, Vol. 335.]
Has his right hon. Friend really considered the matter? Has he discussed it within the Cabinet; and, if not, why not? There is scarcely any matter more important than this at the present time. What is the use of storing food if you will not store iron? We have made arrangements to pay a heavy cost for storing food. Now is the time when the Government ought to be storing stocks of pig iron, which would be invaluable if we got into trouble. It is no use waiting until we get into trouble and then wishing that we had bigger stocks of pig iron. When we see blast furnaces being destroyed and consider the effect upon the country to-day, it is almost as though the Government were dropping bombs on those blast furnaces.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take this matter up. If he will bring it to the notice of the Prime Minister, he will have done a service not only to this House but to the country. The imports of pig iron from foreign countries have increased from 20,000 tons a month to nearly 80,000, and the difference involves 10,000 men. It is not only a question of the 400 men who will be out of work this week just when they were expecting to get holidays with pay. Instead they are to have no work and no holidays with pay. But in addition to them 10,000 men are involved in the increase of the importation of pig iron. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to give an undertaking to bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister.

11.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The hon. Gentleman who has raised this question will realise that he has not left the representative of the Government very much time in which to reply to his rather unnecessarily long explanation. He might at least have split the time equally. In his question the other day he made two

suggestions—first, that the Government, if I understood him aright, should buy up all the pig iron produced in this country and store it, and secondly, that we might revive the practice of what was called, before the War, warrant stores. As I said in my answer, the question of reviving warrant stores is entirely a matter for arrangement with the trade. The idea has not been forgotten, but the industry has so far declined to revive the practice.

Mr. Edwards: I definitely deny that.

Captain Wallace: It does not matter whether the hon. Member definitely denies it or not. That is the fact. They have declined to revive the practice. If they wish to do so, it is open to them to revive it; it has nothing to do with His Majesty's Government. If it were considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that it was necessary at present to build up a store of pig iron, I might have had a different answer to give, but actually at the moment, the production of iron and steel is ample for the requirements of the rearmament programme, and we have in addition caught up with civil requirements. There is an application in front of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, which, if they look favourably on it, and if this House does also, will restrict what has become an excessive import of pig iron into this country. But at the moment, I am informed by my right hon. Friend, there is no cause for anxiety in relation to either present or prospective Defence needs in regard to pig iron. The difficulty is not, I think, in obtaining pig iron, but in working it up, and a very small proportion of the cost of the aeroplanes that we want is attributable to pig iron. I admit that certain furnaces have been blown out since the peak period of last November, when there were 135 in blast—

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to, the Standing Order.